What is atheism? The 3 main types of atheism and their religious equivalents

[QuestionMan]

On here and in real life I've come across quite a few people that have misunderstood what atheism was.

A lot of people seem to think that an atheist is either an asshole that is anti-religious or someone without morals. Now these people obviously exist and I will get to them later in the take but they are not a representation of all atheists.

Let's begin with defining atheism.

Atheism - the disbelief in the existence of God(s)

It is NOT a religion but a lack of one. In the words of Bill Maher "atheism is a religion, like abstinence is a sex position".

Why do people become atheist?

Different people have different reasons but the main one is logical reasoning and deduction. It can come from scientific analysis and/or philosophical analysis of religious texts.

When it comes to science, people believe that God's existence must be proven before it can be accepted as a fact. Otherwise it remains a presumption with very little justification. For science to accept the existence of God, God would need to be quantifiable.

In the case of philosophy, there are many issues with the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. For example if a woman is being assaulted, God with all his power should stop the assailant otherwise he is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. The very idea of an omnipresent being in itself is creepy. Imagine a man constantly watching you regardless of what you are doing regardless of whether you are clothed or not.

There's another less common reason some people choose to become atheist and that is because they are ostracized by their religion. This is most common in homosexuals and other groups that deviate from religious teachings. They may not have the philosophical or scientific reasoning to abandon religion but instead leave it out of hatred for the religious institution. Some however continue to believe in God and consider the religious teachings to be false by stating that "Jesus loves all" and that the discrimination by their religious institution was unjustifiable.

How do atheists have morals without religion?

This is a very common question asked by theists. They assume that the only thing stopping a person from committing crimes is the Ten Commandments provided by God. The problem with this argument is that there are plenty of people that are in prison that believe in God.

What's stopping an atheist then? Several things, for one atheists see the life you have now as all there is. If this is all you have, then you'd want to make the best of it #carpediem. Another is sympathy and empathy. Why would an individual want to cause harm to others when they see what it does to them? The third I will mention is utility. What purpose does killing someone or stealing from someone have? All it does is create a crime filled society in which no one can live peacefully.

Nietzsche famously stated that our morals are subjective without a God as a universal authority however he was wrong in saying that they are arbitrary since there's obviously reason behind them.

Sadly not everyone thinks like this, where do you think #yolo came from?

So what are the 3 main types of atheism and their religious equivalents?

Agnostic atheism - do not believe in the existence of any deity and claim that the existence of a deity is currently unknown.

The religious equivalent is agnostic theism.

Agnostic theism - believe in the existence of at least one god and don't claim to know for sure that this god or gods definitely exist.

Atheism and theism are about belief. Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge.

Apatheism (or pragmatic atheism) - rejects belief in gods because believing in gods is unnecessary for any pragmatic, important part of one's life.

The closest religious equivalent is deism.

Deism - the belief that God exists and created the world, but does not interfere with His creation. Deists deny the Trinity, the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, miracles, and any supernatural act of redemption or salvation. Deism pictures God as uncaring and uninvolved.

Deism pictures God as the great “clockmaker” who created the clock, wound it up, and let it go.

Finally the one that you've all been waiting for.

Anti-theism (or gnostic atheism) - direct opposition and intolerance to organized religion or to the belief in any deity.

They claim that they know for a fact that there is no God and point to cases of religious persecutions of minorities, holy wars, child molestation and other acts made in the name of religion that are negative. They believe that this is enough to justify the eradication of religion.

But what about atheists that were also involved in mass murders? The Soviets carried out massive anti-religious campaigns which resulted in the deaths of many believers. Their only crime was their faith in God.

When confronted with evidence of humanitarian aid provided by religious groups especially since they are the largest contributors, they often shutdown or resort to name calling.

Remind you of anyone?

Gnostic theism - the belief that God exists and that it is known that God exists.

Much like anti-theists they are intolerant to those who say otherwise. These people are the most religious and are most likely to use violence to have their views accepted. No logical arguments can sway their opinion.

Thanks for reading myTake. I hope you enjoyed it.

[G-Daz]

Hitler was as much a Christian as your average new atheist is a Christian. Christianity is a belief system. .. not a marriage contract. Know the difference.

If you don't follow or believe the core principles you're not defaulted as a Christian. It's akin to someone claiming they're a test pilot because they play flight simulators. You can claim you are/perhaps for personal gain but reality is different. Most new atheists convert to atheism between the ages of 10 to be 18 from negligible Christian homes were they were raised half interested in the faith (or as the common atheist claim goes. .. devout strong 12 year old believers).

Equally Hitler wasn't a Christian. Rather most evidence leads towards him being an atheist with Muslim sympathies and used a claim as a Christian ONLY PRIOR to gaining mass political support. Proceeding power, he dissolves all positive association with the faith calling it "Christianity is weak and flabby and will soon die off " - Hitler's table talk. Hardly something a Christian would say.

"Hitler's public relationship to religion has been characterized as one of opportunistic pragmatism.[10] His regime did not publicly advocate forstate atheism, but it did seek to reduce the influence of Christianity on society. Hitler himself was reluctant to make public attacks on the Church for political reasons, despite the urgings of Nazis like Bormann. Although he was skeptical of religion,[11][12] he did not present himself to the public as an atheist, and spoke of belief in an "almighty creator".[13][14] In private, he could be ambiguous.[15][16] Evanswrote that Hitler repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science, which in the long run could not "co-exist with religion".[17] In his semi-autobiographical Mein Kampf (1925/6) Hitler declared himself neutral insectarian matters and supportive of separation between church and state, and he criticized political Catholicism.[18] The book presents a nihilistic, Social Darwinist vision, in which the universe is ordered around principles of struggle between weak and strong, rather than on conventional Christian notions.[19]

You made a claim that Christians think that they're more moral than others. .. this is a fALSE claim. To the contrary. To be a Christian means you are compelled to believe you're imperfect, a sinner. This is a core principle of the faith.

Christians claim all human beings have an innate moral compass made in God's image endowed with

[G-Daz]

A sense of right and wrong which an atheist belief lacks.

This is problematic because all morality becomes subjective under atheism. In Hitler's case he advocated socialist Darwinism believing that human beings with the virus of religion removed ourselves from the natural law of nature. Survival of the fittest was something human beings were running from. So there isn't such a thing as equal human dignity. Some are worth more than others and some were detrimental to producing the perfect human being Arian race Hitler led towards through death camps.

Good morality if you believe it exists isn't a free gift for anyone. Only atheists throw the straw man that some people have it.

Also you asked for proof of God. You'll have to expand on that because if there's proof for anything then it's not science. Science isn't about proofs because it implies the debate is finalised. If we took that approach we'd still be believing in the popular atheist idea of the

[G-Daz]

Steady state theory since atheism was reluctant to accept the big bang and even banned it through the atheist alliance that led the Soviet union (the world's first atheist state). The only discipline with proof is mathematics because it relies on strict rigour using concrete theory.

With that said. . Atheists don't know the criteria for the evidence they claim to want. Because most atheists subscribe to a belief of scientism rather than science so they propose that the only valid authoritative evidence comes from science which is actually a self refuting philosophical claim.

History and archeology are two examples of evidence that an atheist couldn't accept as valid evidence. You could have a banner in the sky saying "i am God, i exist" the fact is atheists don't have a clue what sort of evidence would work because so long as they keep their own beliefs ambiguous, there's no need to think on the topic

[G-Daz]

Regarding atheism simply being a "lack of belief". That's simply not the case. To lack a belief means you lack any degree if knowledge about reality to have the capacity to form a belief/worldview. The only way to get there in reality is if you're a vegetable or in a coma. If you lack that then basic education should help.

If you ask someone to swim in a fire pit. There's no such thing as a lack of belief about what it would do to you. You either believe it could hurt you. It won't. Or you don't know. The absurdity becomes real with the new atheism movement

[G-Daz]

Funnily enough we have evidence according to the largest ever study conducted on the topic which concluded that belief in God is an innate part of human nature so you're lack ing a basic brain function if you don't have.

apologetics-notes.comereason.org/.../...lf-as.html

[QuestionMan]

Thanks for your response. I was waiting for an educated theist to step up to the plate and present their viewpoint. I haven't read Mein Kampf yet you have me there it's definitely on my reading list.

Even if Hitler was a pragmatic Christian as you say it still doesn't change the fact that he was supported by churches. Churches were a key instrument in fascilitating the escape of many Nazis at the end of the second World War. Klaus Barbie was actually found in a church by the French police. So to claim that religion had no role is absurd.

There are many types of Christians, the ones you described are like Martin Luther who believed that they must always repent for everything they've done. Those are a very devout few.

Religious people tend to consider themselves moral because they have a set criteria for what is right or wrong. Nietzsche claimed that this made atheist morals arbitrary, I do not agree since I've provided several reasons why a person should be moral without the need

[QuestionMan]

of a religion.
The reason I used "lack of belief" and not disbelief or doubt is because believing in God requires faith. Atheists don't have faith. Much as someone may lack the belief that gun control is necessary since they hold a completely different viewpoint.

The article you provided misunderstood the difference between belief and knowledge. Agnostic atheists say "I don't believe in God but I don't know for certain if he exists or not."
I thought the picture made that clear.

As for belief in God being innate I disagree. Religion is something that is taught, so everyone is born an atheist (again my use of lack of belief in the definition justifies this).

If someone were to be raised in an environment without religion, than they wouldn't believe in God. I was raised in a secular environment, never attended any religious functions and only picked up a Bible recently. So why would I believe in God?

[G-Daz]

I would recommend Hitler's Table Talks citing Hitlers private conversations even prior to politial power he'd criticise Christianity in private (as we know he became public about his disgust for it when he attained power). Also "The Hitler I Knew: Memoirs of the Third Reich's Press Chief" is a memoir from Hitler's highest close chief that personally documented Hitlers talks and the book is about his criticisms of Christianity and praise of non belief but ultimately wanted to replace the Christian church with his own (as he attempted with nazism that became unsuccessful as a new religion with Hitler as the deity). The book also goes through the reasoning behind the persecution of the Catholic church and the preist death camps.

The Church was not supporting Hitler... at least not after Hitler establishing himself. This is a common strawman nowadays.

When Hitler was installed as Führer, the Roman Catholic Church arranged for a treaty with Hitler

[G-Daz]

one in which (basically) Hitler promised to allow property owned by the Roman Catholic Church in Germany to remain in the possession of that church. The Church, in turn, publicly supported Hitler becoming leader of Germany. This treaty was called "The Concordat".

At the time, Hitler was newly-elected. He was not exterminating Jewish people or sending priests to death camps. He had not yet begun to conquer Poland. He was - to all appearances - a typically ambitious leader with lots of empty promises and no evident sign of someone who would make an actual attempt to conquer the World.

Once WWII began, Hitler reneged on the agreement made with the Vatican. Pope Pius XII is noted as hiding 12,000 Jews in the Vatican to save them from Hitler during the persecution. I'd recommend reading this (accounts by several famous German people who lived during the Nazi Holocaust had some interesting things to say about the Catholic Church) Hitler was very much anti-cleric and anti-Catholic
https:/

[G-Daz]

www.freerepublic.com/.../posts

Notably, offical records from 1933 January 30 state that the German Bishops put an instant excommunication upon anyone that would belong to the Nazi party... which ultimately resulted in Hitler closing down churches and removing as many bishops as he could in the death camps.
www.catholic.com/.../the-church-the-nazis-and-the-facts

I;ll give a basic run down

The Church in Nazi Germany was subjected to as much pressure as any other organisation in Germany. Any perceived threat to Hitler could not be tolerated – and the churches of Germany potentially presented the Nazis with numerous threats.

In 1933, the Catholic Church had viewed the Nazis as a barrier to the spread of communism from Russia. In this year, Hitler and the Catholic Church signed an agreement that he would not interfere with the Catholic Church while the Church would not comment on politics. However, this only lasted until 1937, when

[G-Daz]

Hitler started a concerted attack on the Catholic Church arresting priests etc. In 1937, the pope, Pius XI, issued his “Mit brennender Sorge” statement (“With burning anxiety”) over what was going on in Germany. However, there was never a total clampdown on the Catholic Church in Germany. It was a world-wide movement with much international support.

The Protestant Church was really a collection of a number of churches – hence they were easier to deal with. The Protestants themselves were split. The “German Christians” were lead by Ludwig Muller who believed that any member of the church who had Jewish ancestry should be sacked from the church. Muller supported Hitler and in 1933 he was given the title of “Reich Bishop”.

Those who opposed the views of Muller were called the “Confessing Church”. This was led by Martin Niemoller. He was famous in Germany as he had been a World War One U-boat captain. Therefore, he was potentially an embarrassing foe to the Nazis. Regardless of this,

[G-Daz]

he was not safe from the Gestapo who arrested him for opposing Hitler. Niemoller was sent to a concentration camp for 7 years where he was kept in solitary confinement. Many other Confessional Church members suffered the same fate.

In 1936, the Reich Church was created. This did not have the Christian cross as its symbol but the swastika. The Bible was REPLACED by “Mein Kampf” which was placed on the altar. By it was a sword. Only invited Nazis were allowed to give sermons in a Reich Church.

In 1941, a secret report compiled by Protestants stated that children in Germany were being brought up minus a Christian education. It stated that the Nazis confiscated vast areas of church property and that the Catholic Church in Germany was suffering from the same fate.

"There are many types of Christians, the ones you described are like Martin Luther who believed that they must always repent for everything they've done. Those are a very devout few."

Christianity exists because human

[G-Daz]

beings are inherently flawed in their nature. Christianity recognises this to a t. You keep presuming that Christians are somehow defaulted to being robotic beings of supposed perfection morality. They aren't and the core belief of the faith is to try to reach the unnattrainable goal of being like Christ which is unattainable. Claiming to be a Christian and actually being one are two very different things as I noted with my test pilot and flight simulator analogy.

"they have a set criteria for what is right or wrong"

"right" and "wrong" are all completely subjective with no given truth or authority. there is no core right or wrong if atheism is true. "Morality" even as a simple concept is nothing more than a bi product of make belief human construct which if atheism is true. has no basis in reality

[G-Daz]

It amazes me how many people think Nazism was somehow pro Catholic when to the contrary you need to find any minimal source you can to support such a belief. Look anywhere and everywhere and the abundance of evidence we have says the contrary and highlights Hitlers pragmatic beliefs and hatred of the faith against his totalitarian state en.wikipedia.org/.../Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

[G-Daz]

"faith" REQUIRES evidence, everyone has faith. a lot of people have a misunderstanding of what people mean when we say "faith". To avoid confusion i'll say "trust". Christianity is trust in a person, all people have faith. If you were to go sky diving, you'd not want your friend to pack it for you because you have no basis for belief in assuming you'll be safe. However you would be willing to trust a professional that does this for a living.

This is problematic because many atheists haev famed a definition of faith that Christians don't personally hold. Some people like Peter Boghossian for example has made an entire career out of disproving a definition of faith that Christians don't claim to believe in. This lack of knowledge about it becomes apparent when he's confronted. like in his debate here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dux5hiYEpaw

"As for belief in God being innate I disagree. Religion is something that is taught, so everyone is born an atheist (again my use of lack of belief in the definition justifies this)."

[G-Daz]

Actually it is not an option... to the contrary. It is abnormal for human beings NOT to have belief in God from birth. Only when we are raised without it will the contrary happen. Science has found that we have an innate wiring in the brain that predisposes us to following God.
www.sciencedaily.com/.../110714103828.htm
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...od-academic-claims.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...-says-psychologist.html

The Oxford study was the largest ever study conduted on the topic, costing millions and involving 57 researchers over 40 separate studies in over 20 countries over 3 years (which is the largest ever study conducted on this topic) many prior have already solidified this theory.

They found that regardless of where you are on the planet, you could grow up in a obscure tribe on an island or even have 2 individuals placed on an island. Human nature is oriented towards finding God. Only when indoctrinated out of belief would the contrary be true... so the theist has more logic to state they "lack a belief" in atheist principles than the contrary if anyones going to "lack"

[QuestionMan]

@ladsin @heavensgift2girls You guys seem to be active responders, hoping you guys could answer when I can't since I am very busy.

@G-Daz Didn't know Hitler was hostile to religion, thank you for the info.
I'm glad you brought up articles.
Here's one
www.ibtimes.com/atheists-smarter-religious-believers-new-study-finds-intelligent-people-shun-religion-1383185

Since children are uneducated and often seek simple answers from their parents, the concept of God is a great way to answer all of their questions.

www.scientificamerican.com/.../

Without critical thinking people accept things at face value. That is why a lot of gnostic Christian theists are nothing more than bigots who cling to their Bible which has not been updated in 2000 years.

A lot of social progress happened because we distanced ourselves from religion.
Examples include banning of slavery, decriminalizing homosexuality, allowing premarital sex, abortion, and etc.

[G-Daz]

Actually that's not strictly the case. The smartest people historically past and present remain Christian/theist. The highest IQ averages recorded are

www.examiner.com/.../of-10-highest-iq-s-on-earth-at-least-8-are-theists-at-least-6-are-christians
americanvision.org/.../
www.sciencedaily.com/.../151014084955.htm

The evidence we have also leads us to demonstrating that the reason Europe excelled past the economically advanced China was precisely because of belief in God. Which is why all the modern scientific theories from genetics to the big bang, modern algebra etc were all derived from Christianity.

The atheist belief doesn't have a reason to believe in order. In fact to Di science requires a belief in an ineligible universe which atheism doesn't provide. I wouldn't say we have social progress from atheism though. Abortion us scientifically defined as killing a human being. . which is only moral according to subjectivism

[G-Daz]

If you're an atheist. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in reliable cognitive faculties. Including the very beliefs that you have that led you to atheism. Your beliefs are nothing more than a blind mechanistic process. As Richard Dawkins (a good scientist but terrible philosopher defined) "you're nothing more than a blind collection of atoms, dancing to the tune of your DNA"

Or the noble Lauriette Francis Crick. A devout atheist scientist stated "you, your joys and your sorrows. Your sense of personal identity and free will. Including your belief in a mind is no more than a fallacious by product of your unreliable reasoning capacity. You're simply molecules in motion"

Atheism requires a belief in an unreliable mind that is oriented nit towards truth. .. but to survival which it can't differentiate if true

[QuestionMan]

Atheism does not require faith.
Atheism is based of the pursuit of knowledge since we do not know where the universe came from.
By saying God did it, you over simplify everything and give no reason for further investigation.
Some theists do see science as an explanation of God's work but those are scientists who themselves are not religious. They were deist
www.britannica.com/.../The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

[G-Daz]

"By saying God did it, you over simplify everything and give no reason for further investigation."

That's not a Christian approach or indeed my own approach. Actually that perspective you're espousing arises out of scientism rather than critical thought. Scientism is equally unscientific and gives a self defeater. Saying "God did it"isn't where the debate ends. Asking a Christian to choose between God and science (or indeed any realm of knowledge) as an explanation of the universe is something that arose out of new atheism as opposed to the more critical classical intellectual atheism which didn't espouse scientism.

It's like asking someone to choose between Henry Ford or internal combustible as an explanationsfor the motor car. It's a nonsensical choice.

One is the explanation of the agency. The other is the mechanism. Only a scientism minded individual would claim one is sufficient. Christians simply can claim God created the universe. .. but it doesn't

[G-Daz]

End the research. The ways in which he did it. I. e the mechanistic process he chose to create including the laws he created are a part of that investigation.

If this isn't clear. .. it's like asking "why is the kettle boiling". You can answer. .. "well. .. the particles are heating up inside causing friction and causing the temperature to rise" OR someone wants a cup of tea.

It's irrational to say either explanation is superior (of which there is no objective basis to state). Both provide depth to answers vs the person that takes a more scientism approach which is reductionist and often espoused by new atheists.

"God did it" isn't a runaway from the research. It's kinda like an atheist just stating there isn't a God without any evidence and refusing to acknowledge the possibility involved with any investigation

[G-Daz]

No offense intended but i don't think you gathered what i was stating about. .. if one is an atheist. They have no reason to believe they have functioning cognitive faculties oriented ti truth. We can believe that on wishful thinking but it's ultimately a gamble and one that undermines any belief an atheist holds. Including those that make them an atheist. This is one of the reasons I'm a Christian. Because i believe i have a rational logical mind which only Christianity provides a basis for.

"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" Charles Darwin

It's well known within biology and something that presents doubt on the ability to trust the mind if atheism is true.

[G-Daz]

I've comprehensively researched this so i know it fairly well but c. s Lewis highlighted this the most simply and beautifully

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
C. S. Lewis

[ladsin]

I don't know if I'm doing justice to Barker's quote but a common mistake I see theists making is that they tend to assume that sine we have reason, there is some superimposed big r Reason. It's not. What is reasonable is not constant. It is not reasonable to believe that an object can be in two places at once, but when it comes to electrons they often are in multiple places at once. So no, you should not trust Reason as the end all be all for what is true. Instead trust what is evidenced, or what is evidently true. There is no such evidence or even hint of evidence that a God exists, therefor I am an atheist. Hopefully that makes sense. Look at Dan Barker's argument where he talks about theists superimposing intelligence behind everything (if you can find it)

[Anonymous]

Good myTake. There are also nominally religious people who really are apathetic agnostic atheists, but I think they just don't care. As long as they have food on the table and money in their wallets and friends on their side, that's what matters most in life. Religion for these types of people just becomes a familial/cultural background thing, as opposed to being a conscious lifestyle choice. In my experience, Muslims seem to be more pious than Jews and Christians. At least the latter group never prays ostensibly.

[NedfromtheNed]

"When it comes to science, people believe that God's existence must be proven before it can be accepted as a fact."

Contrary to common belief, a large mass of scientists of all calibers range from religious to very religious. (Im not exactly sure if you were getting at that but i thought i ought to bring it up)

"God with all his power should stop the assailant otherwise he is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent"
Yes and no. You see, it is embedded in many religions that god does everything for a reason and would thusly we can interpret that he had his reasons for doing or not doing something to advance or hinder someones progress.

"This is a very common question asked by theists. They assume that the only thing stopping a person from committing crimes is the Ten Commandments provided by God. The problem with this argument is that there are plenty of people that are in prison that believe in God."
Pretty big assumption that all theists are Christians.

Good take but you have made the mistake of falling in with the masses and kind of targeting Judeo - Christians...

[QuestionMan]

As shown in the video the whole Secret plan sounds very nefarious. Letting a woman get assaulted is wrong since through inaction God allows the woman to be put through pain. It's like a cop watching someone get assaulted but doing nothing. No good can come from allowing evil to triumph.

My bad I should've said Judeo-Christians instead of theists.

[NedfromtheNed]

To reason why god does the things he/she/it does is none of my business. I only hypothesize why my God does what He does; but no many can truly know God (referring to my god).
I feel good can come from pain just like good can come from facing obstacles or overcoming problems. If you dont agree with me thats cool; but just make sure you dont try to tell me who my god is (which i dont think you were doing).

Why the targeting or Judeo - Christians. And if you did it to prove a point how come you didn't include Muslims in there; are we not all Abrahamic Religions?

[QuestionMan]

That's like saying I trust my government to do what is best even if it is obviously bad. Guantanamo Bay is a perfect example. People are just satisfied with letting the US government do whatever it wants just because the government says it's for the greater good. Unlike God however, the government is held accountable to the people.

So how can we trust an absolute power that has no oversight. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" Lord Acton

Yes some people grow from negative experiences but that doesn't justify them. Rape for example is something that could be prevented by an all powerful being. It is a negative experience few come out of unscared. To allow this to happen God would either have to favor evil or be incapable of doing anything since no rational being could watch as a woman is being raped.

[QuestionMan]

I used Judeo-Christians as an example. There's no hidden motive behind it.

[NedfromtheNed]

Once again i will state that i know why God does what he does; it is impossible to know why He does what he does.
Also, it is inappropriate for you to tell me what and who my God is. Not to mention, in all religions god is all powerful and thusly he/she/it can't be corrupted (at least not in my religion)

[Kirah]

Actually more than 90% of scientists today do not believe in God.

[NedfromtheNed]

"Actually more than 90% of scientists today do not believe in God."

Says who?

[jacquesvol]

I just want you to show you this picture:

cdn.ucadia.net/.../people_ce_20c_stalin.jpg

S. J. stands for Societas Jesu, the Latin name of the Roman Catholic Jesuit order.
I found it here: https://one-evil.org/content/people_20c_stalin.html

With the comment: "Lenin like most of the Bolsheviks regarded Stalin as a double agent of the Jesuits. Their most visible proof was the fact that Stalin had escaped death in prison and the extraordinary and unprecedented leniency given to him by the Tsarist Government - when agitators found guilty of a fraction of the actions of Stalin had been brutally tortured and killed. While the escapes and "near misses" are recorded about the life of Stalin, the fact that he was apparently the "luckiest revolutionary" of the 20th Century is not discussed."

[justbanANNAz]

Interesting. I knew of the different types, but not all of them. I knew that they can have morals without religion [lol].

just to point something out here:
"When it comes to science, people believe that God's existence must be proven before it can be accepted as a fact. Otherwise it remains a presumption with very little justification. For science to accept the existence of God, God would need to be quantifiable."

^^science can't prove that God isn't quantifiable. therefore He still remains a valid possibility.

[RachelBrigs]

I understand your last point, but there's also no proof we aren't but a speck of dust in a cat's butt hole, but no one recognizes that as a possibility, although technically we don't know it to be untrue for a fact.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to explain why many of the people who heavily rely on science don't talk about the god possibility

[justbanANNAz]

exactly. nah i agree. God can't be proven or disproven, so the beauty here is that all possibilities are valid ones that should be respected. @RachelBrigs

[justbanANNAz]

i also seriously hoopoe aren't all in some cat's butthole 😂

[justbanANNAz]

hope we*

[RachelBrigs]

Me too 😂😂

[QuestionMan]

I see you used Schrodinger's cat.
I disagree with this type of reasoning because since God is a theory, it must be proven in order to be valid. It's like saying "Unicorns are real and they all live in North Korea. Prove me wrong". I can't disprove something that doesn't exist, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

[justbanANNAz]

disagree all u like lol. u lead me to this take and i showed u my view. if u don't like it that's totally okay. ill respect ur view and agree to disagree.

[QuestionMan]

I'm just trying to get you to explain yours lol.

[justbanANNAz]

i actually don't want to tbh. I'm not bothered. it'll end up getting shut down anyway. i could go on and on if i wanted to, but I'm not in youth meeting. I'm on GaG and it's pointless.

[QuestionMan]

Why would you be shut down?
I want to hear your arguments so I can see why people choose to believe in God.
What's a youth meeting?

[Beaver19]

To throw my hat in late, I believe in God, and while I certainly don't have all the answers, the fact science can't prove his existence doesn't mean he's not there, hypothetically if he does exist and has all the powers mentioned in the mytake, (which he would given he created everything in this hypothetical and my beliefs) he could simply stop us from discovering him and be beyond any comprehension.

Honestly when you look at faith if God gave us proof of his existence so solid he sent down angels to knock on doors then faith wouldn't be faith would it? It'd just be obvious instead of seeking it.

Also there's a lot of things science has theories on that are completely real but they can't really explain or analyze either so the idea that something is beyond science is not false.

Going further off that several of the elite science type community seem to really hate the idea of something they can't answer and that's where some of the disrespectful asshole atheists get their teachings.

[Beaver19]

Again I'm just stating some things I've noticed about science and some of its elites view on God and also some of the ways God and his hidden presence factor into life given some of my readings, it's just my ideas and I do personally have faith that God is there no matter what some egghead may say.

Just thought this opinion was interesting had to share haha

[RedThread]

@RachelBrigs sorry that cat's butthole reference was freaking hilarious thanks.

[RachelBrigs]

@RedThread you're welcome lol

[heavensgift2girls]

I am not sure I agree with your definitions. Your definitions seem too absolute. Most atheists don't go around saying they know god isn't real, but have no problem saying there is no god. I don't believe in bigfoot, but I admit there is a chance I could be wrong about bigfoot, no matter how unlikely that is. I can't logically say "I know there is no bigfoot" since that is impossible for me to prove. I have no problem saying "There is no such thing as bigfoot" based solely on the fact that I don't believe in bigfoot. I don't need to know something isn't real, in order to make the claim something isn't real.

I do agree with your example of double standards. If a Christian doesn't measure up, and ends up like Hitler, then they make excuses that he wasn't a real Christian. Yet they want to lump all atheists in the same category.

[QuestionMan]

That's why I wrote about agnostic atheists.
Read that definition.

[heavensgift2girls]

Then what is the difference between an agnostic, and an agnostic atheist?

[QuestionMan]

There's agnostic theist and agnostic atheist.
Agnostic means lacks knowledge, theist means believes in god (s), atheist means doesn't believe in gods.
A person can't be just agnostic they are either theist or atheist.

[Bysshe]

"A person can't be just agnostic they are either theist or atheist."

Only if you're willing to label a new born child as an atheist simply for lacking belief in god/s, when it's more reasonable to say that child is agnostic.

[nalaa]

Well I DO think hitler is a bad example, since he really was quite open about thinking Christianity was an annoyance he had to put up with and he did work hard to get rid of it.
SO not sure why you would choose Hitler when there is such an abundance of actual Christian leaders, that have done terrible things available

Though I do think looking at the three biggest genocides of our times
qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1fd3ab475acf0e21442baef591009753

certainly shows that absence of religion isn't necessarily better than having religion

[Beaver19]

Keep in mind people did those acts, not God. Whether you believe in him or not people will always twist words from the bible into "righteous"weapons that are evil in actuality. So I don't think it's really fair to blame God or at least the idea of him for those atrocities, somewhere along the line man twisted the teachings.

Food for though

[ladsin]

Well written! Was this just for the purpose of explaining the different types of atheism? I feel slightly different about firebrand atheists because I see why they are angry at religion as a whole, but personally don't have the drive to do it myself.

[QuestionMan]

It was to explain the different types since people automatically think atheist =anti-theist

[ladsin]

I gotcha

[ladsin]

Thanks a lot of us get branded zealots, just like many religious!

[QuestionMan]

Thanks :)

[Zorax]

Great Take, basically, I'm a spiritual Atheist... I don't believe in any God or Gods, but I believe in some supernatural phenomena, like telepathy, psychokinesis, precognition etc.
But what about Pantheists? You also forgot about complete Agnostics: "I don't know whether God exists or not".

[QuestionMan]

This take was based solely on atheism.
Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge, as I mentioned most people are either theist or atheist since these are the beliefs.

[Zorax]

I see, ok :)

[Jager66]

Woooo!! Darkmatter2525 I love that guys channel, so awesome.

[shadowlegend]

1. Atheist (s) don't have "types" they are simply categorized as "people who don't believe in a god", simple. 2. Morals have absolutely nothing to do with religion, and are simply beliefs you have that help you govern your life.

[Mekkalyn]

1. Why do you think that there are not types of atheists?
Just like there are types of every other religion/belief. Not everyone believes 100% the same thing, even in the same religion. There are variances, albeit small, but still there are differences within each church and it also varies per region. There are the extremely serious Christians that promote abstinence, 0 divorce policy, etc., and there are the christians that are lax on those issues.

Why wouldn't that be similar with atheists? There are two very clear types... those that think for sure that there is no god, without any doubt (unwavering), and those that don't think there is, but that it could be a possibility (wavering).

[shadowlegend]

@Mekkalyn The fact that those who call themselves Christians or Catholics and then hand-pick which "rules" to follow or not, is a joke, when they all claim to believe in the same god. As far as Atheists go, they are categorized by people who DON'T believe in a god, that is the definition of an atheist. You can create your own sub-set of categories, but that is the simple definition.

[Mekkalyn]

Yes, that is the simple definition of Atheists.
But you said there are no types.
There are.
They are sub-sets, like you just said.
They still boil down to being an atheist, but there are better descriptors for some than others.

[shadowlegend]

@Mekkalyn There are personal interpretations of different atheists.

[heavensgift2girls]

@Mekkalyn The difference is that the different types of believers proclaim what type of believer they are. Atheists aren't the ones dividing them into different sub groups like protestant and catholic, they divided themselves into those groups. Telling a theist, or an atheist they aren't what they claim by forcing them into a sub group such as telling them they are really an agnostic or some other nonsense is just insulting. It implies they don't really believe what they claim they believe.

Being a theist or an atheist has nothing to do with knowing, and is only about if you believe or not. Trying to claim people are agnostic when they clearly aren't, is a tactic often used by both sides in order to shake the stance of the person they are talking to, by accusing them of being an agnostic instead of what they really are.

[Mekkalyn]

No one is forcing anyone into a group.
I don't see how someone can force you to be something you're not.
This mytake isn't about forcing anyone to be in a difference branch of atheism... it's just attempting to explain atheists a bit more and show they aren't the enemy.

It's being blown of our proportion and shouldn't be taken as an insult, since the myTake owner had no intention of being mean or hurtful.

[Mekkalyn]

out of proportion* don't know what happened there.

[rjroy3]

I feel like there's a gap in this description. Just because there are Agnostics that don't have a belief either way. They withhold that until they find conclusive evidence. So the only thing they believe is that they don't know.

[QuestionMan]

Everyone has an inclination that is why I only mentioned the 2

[vishna]

Agnostic atheism, sweet.

I remember in my Islamic studies course a girl in a Christian sorority said "But don't atheists believe in nothing" A good representation of ideas on people who don't think there's a God.

[QuestionMan]

Everyone believes in something, for example I believe pineapples do not belong on a pizza.
Atheists just don't believe in god they can have other beliefs, some are even spiritual.

[vishna]

Yea, I think I worded it in a confusing manner. This is how I think a lot of the devoutly religious view atheists "believe in nothing"

[Hezigrimm]

What about the believers that believe while heartedly, but do not want to interfere with anyone else's beliefs? I believe in God, and I know he exsists. This does not mean I think you have no right to believe other wise nor do I think you should die. We all have a God given right to believe what we want to. Now as for the consequences. Well that's a different story that is not up to me, but rather you and God.

[Stephen10]

The root cause of atheism is to allow people to live how they please without the feat of being judged in the afterlife. There is evidence of creation, the fine tuning of the universe, the perfect eclipse, the complexity of DNA etc. Being an atheist requires tremendous faith because you must believe that something can come from nothing, even though atheists deny this. And morally, atheism usually leads to abortion, homosexuality, pornography, foul language, bullying, and much more. Atheism is not just a lack of belief, it is a dangerous cult trying to enforce its beliefs on school children and university students. Atheism is a lie from hell.

[QuestionMan]

You misunderstood the take completely.
I'm assuming you're a gnostic theist.
Why would an atheist need faith? Being theist is all about believing in something you've never seen.

Yes humans are complex but that doesn't mean we were created. In order for that statement to be valid, there would need yo be evidence of a technology that created human beings.

Atheism isn't about something coming from nothing. It's just about not believing in a creator. Very few atheists claim to know what created the universe. It could have been a natural process, no one knows.

As I stated in the morality section, atheists have their own reasons for being moral. Abortion has nothing to do with atheism, it is the woman's choice on whether or not she has the baby. Although most atheists tend to be pro-choice, there are those that are pro-life as well.

Homosexuality is innate.

What's wrong with pornography?

Foul language is used by religious people far more to defend their beliefs.

A cult requires

[QuestionMan]

organization. Atheism is a belief held by individuals. There are no atheist churches.

Schools are secular in order to promote pluralism.
No school is atheist.

Hell isn't real. It is a concept created to scare people into behaving if they don't have a moral compass.

Just listen to John Lennon. All he wanted was peace on Earth and for all people to be happy. How is this evil?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8

[Amanda75]

You sir are an absolute fucking moron.

[djvtech]

Troll.

[djvtech]

Atheism is so dangerous that the most atheistic countries in the world (france, norway, denmark, sweden, etc.) have some of the lowest crime rates and highest quality of life? Atheism is SO immoral, that the majority of the prison population is religious?

[Stephen10]

Most atheists completely reject creation, which means they are forced to believe in something coming from nothing. That requires tremendous faith. Atheism often leads to pornography, homosexuality and other other sins. Atheists can't see anything wrong with these things because there is no absolute morality in atheism. That's why most atheists are sexually immoral.

[heavensgift2girls]

God would still have had to come from nothing, so atheists aren't any any different boat than creations on that front. All you have done is to push the issue back.

[Stephen10]

@heavensgift2girls Nope! Someone had to eternally exist in order for time and space to exist in the first place. That's why God makes perfect sense because the universe coming from nothing is ludicrous.

[QuestionMan]

God coming from nothing is even more ridiculous

[Stephen10]

God didn't come from nothing. He has always existed. Otherwise we wouldn't have a universe or intelligent life.

[QuestionMan]

Nothing can always exist. Everything comes from something.

[Stephen10]

Well God is outside of time and space. If God never always existed the nothing would exist today because something cannot come from nothing

[QuestionMan]

How can something exist outside time and space?

[ichot]

Hurp Derp, Because a book tells me it can. /sarcasm.

[Stephen10]

@ichot Sorry, how silly of me. I forgot that male and female originated from a puddle of monkey urine.

[ichot]

and the rib story is better? mix some more dust and a rib from a male to make a woman? gee, such precise science.

[Stephen10]

@ichot God can create male and female any way he chooses. But the idea of male and female coming from monkey urine or sea creatures is the highest form of folly and anti-science.

[ichot]

jesus christ... then what made your God? Another God? is there a society of gods that we just can't possibly fathom? Do you think they have no physical form so when they want to reproduce they just get in a blender and when they're done a baby shapless god is made? Think mom god gets depressed when papa god punishes god for being such an inconsistent narcissistic ass?

Herp Derp, you can't proove it anyways so it's so obviously true. You can't say anything to disprove it. Ha! /sarcasm

[Stephen10]

@ichot Nobody made God. He is eternal.

[jacquesvol]

People who need an iman or a priest to tell to them from 20 centuries old legends what's right and hat's wrong really scare me. Don't they really know the difference by themselves?

[Beaver19]

I find it funny there's more infighting between atheists about what being atheist means in the comments below than nearly any church argues about the tenants of their faith.

[QuestionMan]

Lol so true

[CanPenguinsBendOver]

Not sure if all your terms are accurate but great article. I'm an agonist atheist myself and although I'm glad you've written this it can only mean you'll get an Armageddon in the comments section.

[QuestionMan]

Thanks :)

[Anonymous]

Good take. Many people seem to think someone is either religious, athiest or agnostic, when someone can be agnostic while believing or not. I don't really understand the point of the word agnostic though, cause nobody knows for sure whether there's a god or not, so everyone is agnostic really.
The only thing i disagree with is the question "Why do people become atheist?". Everyone is born as an athiest, the question should be "Why do people become theist?"

[QuestionMan]

Good point I actually brought that up with someone else that we are all born atheists until we are brainwashed to believe in a higher power. He avoided the question by stating that most people automatically turn to religion and that you need the ability to reason to decide whether you're a theist or not. It was G-Daz, check out his response but I warn you he writes a lot.

Why do people become theist?
Out of a sense of security. Some people need clear rules to live by and cannot be independent.

[LovelyDisquiet]

"why do people become atheist"

I find this odd because people are born believing/knowing nothing. I have simply remained this way.

[QuestionMan]

This is referring to people who were religious first and then became atheist.
Personally I always thought god, heaven and hell were fairytales.

[LovelyDisquiet]

No... I mean... I was technically "born" Christian, because my parents were.

But we were all born knowing/believing nothing. We just decide to pick up what sounds important to us on the way.

[RachelBrigs]

You forgot agnostic atheists :)

Such as myself. But good take.

[QuestionMan]

I put agnostic atheists

[QuestionMan]

It was the first one I mentioned.
I'm in between agnostic atheist and apatheist.

[RachelBrigs]

Lol no wonder I got the downvotes. Sorry I'm absent minded.

[tortelina]

This is a total misrepresentation of what gnostic and gnosticisn is! Seriously...

[QuestionMan]

Alright than what is a right representation?

[tortelina]

Google it. Or Wikipedia it. It's a mystical tradition involving direct experience of god.

[QuestionMan]

LOL that makes your comment invalid if you tell me to Google it.
That shows that you do not have any knowledge in the matter.

I did my research before writing this myTake so I know what gnostic means. I don't think you do.

[tortelina]

I guess you didn't work very hard: Gnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern term categorizing a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world – which they viewed as created by the demiurge – and embraced the spiritual world.

[QuestionMan]

In this context the literal meaning of gnosticism (having knowledge) is used.

[tortelina]

It is not the literal meaning. You caused confusion by your word choice. You could have just said knowing and unknowing and avoid confusion. I guess you didn't know better!

[QuestionMan]

I didn't choose these words I applied them in myTake. They're known definitions.

Why do you care about the words used? It's the message that matters.

[tortelina]

They are not known definitions. They are distorted definitions. Pure invention.
Why do I care that you misused words? Because I have respect for the language and for truth.
When somebody stupidly uses the wrong word and then covers up by saying words don't matter and "the message matters" I wonder this: why can't you just choose and use the right words? Is it so hard to find the correct words? Then it dawns on me: you're just intellectually slow and lazy. A sloth. SLOTH: that's a good word with a noble history. Maybe you should write a mytake about that! Or maybe I will if you're too lazy.

[QuestionMan]

Well I don't know why you're PMSing all over the keyboard. I'm guessing you've never heard of the terms being used this way. If you look at Mandarin they do it quite often, taking old words combining them with other words to create a new meaning.
Here's a list of words in English whose meaning has changed over time.
www.mirror.co.uk/.../words-literally-changed-meaning-through-2173079

[tortelina]

Oh so now you're reinventing words! Why didn't you say so? Ok well carry on.

[Anonymous]

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god/s, that's not the same as believing god/s don't exist. An 'agnostic theist' however believes in god/s, which is the same as believing that god/s exist. That's not really agnostic.

[Opinion Owner]

"Anti-theism (or gnostic atheism)" No, those are distinct.