Where do atheists come from?

**arcticwolf** · 02-23-2014, 09:39 PM

As far as I know those cursed creatures are spawns of Satan himself!

**Altzek** · 02-23-2014, 10:06 PM

From Orco_al_parco_dei_mostri_di_Bomarzo.jpg place, I'd say.

Jokes apart, the reasons an atheist starts to exist are three:
-one, the atheist just uses his own brain and thinks he figures out that there is no cosmic being responsible for creation and for its preservation. These are inoffensive ideas, I can deal with the existance of this kind of atheists because they're mostly what I expect an atheist to be: someone who just doesn't believes in anything and doesn't cares or bitches about it or boasts about how much cool he is because ATHEISM.
-two, the guy is an absolute dork in life, like he's completely unlucky in everything and thinks that an omnipotent, benign being responsible for creation and its preservation can't exist because of all the evil and bad things that happened to him.
-three, the guy just adopts the atheist intellectual trend of the moment without actually knowing what the hell is he believing in (because, wheter we want it or not, atheism IS a belief. The belief in the non-existance of God, which can be rendered in the lack of belief in the existance of God to make the concept appear prettier). Sometimes, this way is related to the second one, the poor guy becomes absolutely deluded, thinking he knows everything, as if the simple mention in his monologues of the words "science", "reason", "rationality", "sky fairy" automatically makes him a guru of sorts. It is to be noted that I've gone through this phase, and my "faith" in atheism was smashed as soon as I had to debate with a theist of any kind, religious or not. The third way to access atheism makes someone feel incredibly good about himself, unless forced to actually engage in debate. When that happens, the whole world implodes and the poor guy (like the undersigned) realizes what kind of mockery of intelligent life he was. Most sadly, most atheists are born with this way.

**lei.talk** · 03-08-2014, 09:46 AM

Nobody ever joins a cult. One joins a nonprofit group that promotes green technology, animal rights, or transcendental meditation. One joins a yoga class or an entrepreneurial workshop. One begins practicing an Eastern religion that preaches peace and forbearance. The first rule of recruitment, writes Margaret Singer, the doyenne of cult scholarship, is that a recruit must never suspect he or she is being recruited. The second rule is that the cult must monopolize the recruit’s time. Therefore, in order to have any chance of rescuing a new acolyte, it is critical to act quickly. The problem is that family and friends, much like the new cult member, are often slow to admit the severity of the situation. “Clients usually don’t come to me until their daughter is already to-the-tits brainwashed,” says David Sullivan, a private investigator in San Francisco who specializes in cults. “By that point the success rate is very low.”

*

**Prisoner Of Ice** · 03-08-2014, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by lei.talk

Sounds like perfect description of atheists who follow dawkins around like puppies and take pictures of themselves flipping off the cross. I guess it's a lot more fun to hate that to love because few religions can find any members to get so involved.

**1stLightHorse** · 03-08-2014, 12:08 PM

Atheism is on the same level as any form of dogmatism.
Both are committing to the unknowable. Dogmatics make the claim that their beliefs are the truth and atheists cling to theirs out of probability.

It would be reasonable to conclude that atheists choose their position out of rebellion more than anything else. It's an "anti" movement rather than a truth movement.

The bottom line is, you can't prove that God exists and you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Atheists take their position against religion. If a religion makes a claim and it turns out to be false scientifically, atheists jump on the bandwagon "oh you see, there isn't any God". Can they possibly get anymore unscientific? It doesn't mean there is no God, it means that religion has falsely portrayed the notion of God. No-one knows if an all-powerful deity exists or not, if you think you do you're an idiot.

Agnosticism is more honest.

**zhaoyun** · 03-08-2014, 03:41 PM

I am an atheist/agnostic. While I do not believe that God exists, I do not absolutely discount that possibility. However, I do not believe that science and religion should inhabit the same spheres, they are completely different. I consider religion man made, but it can serve crucial social benefits as well as personal benefits. I have seen people use religion to overcome great odds and challenges in life. So religion can be used as a way to mold one's mind, to understand how to conceptualize certain problems and challenges in life, and to overcome them. So in that way, I see religion as a positive when used in that manner.

However, I am adamantly against religion interfering with politics or introducing policies which are intolerant or unfair to those who do not share those religious beliefs, or when religion interferes with scientific knowledge or progress. I am very hostile to religious influence in that way.

**Neanderthal** · 03-08-2014, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by 1stLightHorse

Atheism is on the same level as any form of dogmatism.
Both are committing to the unknowable. Dogmatics make the claim that their beliefs are the truth and atheists cling to theirs out of probability.

It would be reasonable to conclude that atheists choose their position out of rebellion more than anything else. It's an "anti" movement rather than a truth movement.

The bottom line is, you can't prove that God exists and you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Atheists take their position against religion. If a religion makes a claim and it turns out to be false scientifically, atheists jump on the bandwagon "oh you see, there isn't any God". Can they possibly get anymore unscientific? It doesn't mean there is no God, it means that religion has falsely portrayed the notion of God. No-one knows if an all-powerful deity exists or not, if you think you do you're an idiot.

Agnosticism is more honest.

It's unbelievable how 'unscientific' are some scientists today. Trying to shove some essays and theories down your throat as if they were 'universal truths' without no factual basis whatsoever.

Believing without proof might be moronic, but trying to convince others of theories you have no real proof of shielded by the shield of 'reason' and 'science' it's dishonest to say the least.

**Prisoner Of Ice** · 03-08-2014, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Neanderthal

It's unbelievable how 'unscientific' are some scientists today. Trying to shove some essays and theories down your throat as if they were 'universal truths' without no factual basis whatsoever.

Believing without proof might be moronic, but trying to convince others of theories you have no real proof of shielded by the shield of 'reason' and 'science' it's dishonest to say the least.

Well, dawkins is a biologist. That doesn't count as a real scientist.