Atheism

Atheism is not a religion, and cannot be "practiced." It is a single stance on a single issue. It is simply the absence of belief in gods. There are European countries which have a large majority of atheists. According to Wikipedia, the five most secular (non-theist) European countries are Estonia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

The standard definition of atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Ludwig Feuerbach wrote that atheism, "is the secret of religion itself; that religion itself, not indeed on the surface, but fundamentally, not in intention or according to its own supposition, but in its heart, in its essence, believes in nothing else than the truth and divinity of human nature." (The Essence of Christianity)

Ludwig Feuerbach «Das Wesen des Christenthums» 1841 Ludwig Feuerbach: "The Essence Of Christianity" in Relation to (Max Stirner's) "The Ego And Its Own" It is also possible that you are thinking of Voltaire's quote that "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

The first reason is that scientists are well educated. Surveys show that better educated people are far less likely to believe in a personal God than do poorly educated people. Another reason many in the scientific community do not believe in God is that research scientists must look at issues formerly used by pious Christians as supposed proof of the existence of God. The more scientists look at creation and the fundamental issues of the universe, the less they see any evidence of God. In his latest book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking says that because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. There was no role for God. Answer The scientific community neither advocates or denounces the concept of god any more than it takes a position on "good taste in music" or " fashion sense". There is no branch of science identified as "deity-disproof". Science is the pursuit of knowledge, the hows and whys of the workings of the physical world. Some theists feel that any question which has an presently unknown answer should be relegated to a category of "We don't know why or how this happened so god must have done it!" and see scientists' relentless probing (and difficult to discuss in simple terms) explanations as an affront to their belief system and conclude that scientists are trying to prove god does not exist. Most scientists really just don't care about theological issues. Answer The scientific community uses the scientific method to help understand our world. It is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. To date, there is simply no measurable, testable evidence for the existence of a god. It's as simple as that. Answer "Beliefs" are part of religious life. Scientists in general do not hold community "beliefs" about gods. Some scientists believe in gods and some do not. Those are personal choices. Scientists are not obsessed with the existence or non-existence of gods. Religionists seem to be the ones who are obsessed with the lack of belief in other groups. Answer Many scientists, especially among those in the New Atheist movement, hold that if God as traditionally defined in the Judaeo/Christian and Islamic faiths, does exist then his claimed intervention in the physical-material universe, such as through answered prayer or stories of divine healing, should be observable and testable by scientific means. No tests have ever produced positive results, and no observations have been scientifically verifiable.

An atheist is the term for a person who lacks any belief in God.

This is a matter of luck - it just depends on who the parents happen to be. There are some who can, through a combination of more random chance and personal determination, pull themselves out of poverty to be economic successes. Answer: All people are born neither rich or poor. After birth circumstances will determine if you are considered to be rich or poor by others who are richer or poorer than you. After achieving some measure of independence a person can try to change his status with regard to monetary value, either losing the money he has come into or gaining more.

A person who is Jewish is Jewish by birth. Their religion is mainly Judaism unless they claim to be atheists, secular or other faith.

Atheism is not a political party or organization; it is a lack of belief in a god (or gods). There is no one person who is the leader of the philosophy of atheism, just as there is no one person who is the leader of all the Jews, Moslems, Christians, Buddhists or all the Hindus or all the Humanists in the world. If you do not believe god, the super leader of this universe, the word 'leader ' is meaningless On the other hand, you may be referring to a leader who is an atheist. Some countries, like China, Cuba, and North Korea, have taught a brand of Communism that discourages religious belief and prefers atheism. So the leaders of those countries could be considered atheistic leaders-- political leaders who also believe in atheism. In addition leaders of most secular countries such as American and Canada (as opposed to theocracies like the Vatican or many Arabic countries) are not required to belong to a specific (or any) religious belief and could be be atheists

If the question means "How can you be an atheist in a Christian home since all that sweetness and love will convince you that you should follow the lord!" - it isn't going to happen. An atheist forms his or her position from observation and investigation, not by believing a set of fallacious arguments.

Gnostocism flourished during the early years of Christianity and, in the view of some scholars, may have accounted for around half the Christian population. What was to become the dominant branch of Christianity, Catholic-Orthodox, persecuted Gnosticism out of existence in western Europe, although it continued in eastern Europe. The Cathars were a sect with strong Gnostic influences that re-established a presence in southern France in the twelfth century, but was once again eliminated by the Catholic Inquisition. Modern Cathars claim to be survivors of that purge and to maintain original Cathar beliefs. The Rosicrucians are a legendary and secretive order that appears to have been founded in the 15th century, the 17th century or perhaps the 18th century. While it probably can not be described as genuinely Gnostic, it does claim some Gnostic influence.

In Muslim countries which adhere strictly to Sharia law, being an "unbeliever" is illegal, these include Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt. Of course, it's difficult to prove disbelief so there are doubtless atheists in these countries. It is also illegal in several US states (Texas, Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, N. Carolina, S Carolina, Pennsylvania and Tennessee) to hold public office if you're an atheist, although this doesn't seem to be strictly enforced.

While atheists have no set of rules or regulations to follow and each acts in their own way, they generally value each human life as a unique and brief thing. With the exception of self preservation there is no need for killing. Wanton destruction of life is seen as a pointless activity. Points to remember: Atheists are not a homogeneous bloc. There is no atheist agenda Atheists often have good friends and family that are religious If everyone else noticed that a group was attempting to purge the world of a group (a specific religion, bald or racial) the rest of the world might turn on them. This is a bad outcome for that group Atheists don't kill people who are not atheists is because atheists have no desire to force everyone to think as they think and do as they say. Most have no wish to dominate. That would make us no better than the religious people. Atheist have no need to commit genocide. Logically. as the religious make up more than 66% of the world, a world without all those technicians, farmers, doctors, air traffic controllers, sewer workers etc. might be unpleasant to live in

Ownership is a concept. Money is just thin peices of paper that make someone better then others, when in nature they are not.

It's very unlikely; he was raised and lived as a Catholic.

If you mean the old clunker about an atheist professor daring God to stop a piece of chalk from breaking it has been debunked several times. Snopes had a rather complete summary of the debunking (see Link). Basically it comes down to: No class or professor as described has worked at USC No incident was reported at the time University students don't hang around to be preached to by a fellow student

An atheist is a person who believes in no gods or supernatural beings. To avoid that "believe" word which is often twisted by theists to prove that we "believe" in something: An atheist is someone who has thought things through, concluded that there is no god now or ever, and accepted that fact. Theists believe in god(s). The letter "a", prefixed to a word, means "the opposite to". So a-theists are the opposite of theists.

Atheists don't believe there is any Gods at all. Agnostics don't know if there is a God or not.

Ism: represents Belief In or Commitment To. Theism: "theos" means god or God; "a belief in or commitment to God" Pan-theism: "pan" means All, Everywhere; "a belief or commitment to a god being everywhere or in all things" A-theism: "a" means Not, Negative-of; "a belief that there is no God" Mono-theism: "mono" means One, Single, Undivided; "a belief that there is only one God"

It is condescending and self-contradictory to say that atheists do not believe in God because it is convenient not to do so. Surely there is an underlying necessity to believe in God in order to choose not to believe. Some claim the reason is intellectual laziness, but this is a weapon that can be used at least as effectively against those who believe in the God of their ancestors as against those who do not. No, there are two good reasons people would not believe in God. One is that they have their own gods and believe in them just as fervently as Christians believe in their God. Another is that they believe there is no evidence that God even exists.

Opinion Because there is less prosecution for atheists these days. Less pressure from the government and families to believe in a certain doctrine (although there is still pressure in some places). Also, communism instated atheism as the state religion, seeing as how Marx described religion as the opiate of the masses. Lastly, with science some people feel that mysticism no longer has a place in their lives since everything has a rational explanation. Opinion Everything in the first answer is true, though I think it is prudent to note that the biggest reason is probably science. Deities are usually put in place to explain things that couldn't be explained at the time (Zeus was the reason for lightning, for example). Now that we have an explanation for lightning, we no longer need Zeus. At this point, god has been relegated, by anyone who understands enough science, that the only place for him anymore is untestable areas with assertions about God making the Big Bang happen and having a heaven/hell to go to after we die. We now know a deity is not needed to make a star, planet, life, sentience, and other major things previously attributed to him/her. So, logically at this point god can only be a "clockmaker" who started the universe via the Big Bang and hasn't interfered since (which makes him negligible), or simply doesn't exist. Either would give the same amount of evidence we have today: none. As science continues to progress, there is less and less need for God (as shown in the previous paragraph, he's nonexistent or negligible already), and with advancements in global communication, polling studies, and such it becomes more an more apparent that organised religion is generally a corrupting influence that is a detriment to society.

Some say he is athiest, but his response here seems pretty agnostic to me. Can't speak for Melinda. Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits. Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount? Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very positive impact. Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you don't know? Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.

Shemhamphorasch (a corruption of Hebrew Shem ha-Mephorash) is an epithet for a 72-letter name of God derived by medieval kabbalists from the book of Exodus, by reading the letters of three verses in a specific order.[1] The name is composed of 72 groups of three letters, each of these triplets being the name of an angel or intelligence. In speech and writing the term Shemhamphorasch is normally substituted for the actual 72-letter name for brevity, and, as with the epithet Tetragrammaton, to avoid desecrating the actual name. Spelling variants include Shemhamforash, Shemhamphorae, Shemhamphorash, Shemahamphorasch, Shemhamphoresh, Shem ha-Mephoresh, Shem ha-Mephorash, Shemhamphoresch. Verses: וַיִּסַּע מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים הַהֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵי מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵּלֶךְ מֵאַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּסַּע עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן מִפְּנֵיהֶם וַיַּעֲמֹד מֵאַחֲרֵיהֶם׃ And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: וַיָּבֹא בֵּין ׀ מַחֲנֵה מִצְרַיִם וּבֵין מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיְהִי הֶעָנָן וְהַחֹשֶׁךְ וַיָּאֶר אֶת־הַלָּיְלָה וְלֹא־קָרַב זֶה אֶל־זֶה כָּל־הַלָּיְלָה׃ And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness [to them], but it gave light by night [to these]: so that the one came not near the other all the night. וַיֵּט מֹשֶׁה אֶת־יָדֹו עַל־הַיָּם וַיֹּולֶךְ יְהוָה ׀ אֶת־הַיָּם בְּרוּחַ קָדִים עַזָּה כָּל־הַלַּיְלָה וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת־הַיָּם לֶחָרָבָה וַיִּבָּקְעוּ הַמָּיִם׃ And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go [back] by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry [land], and the waters were divided. The arrangement of Hebrew letters (with Roman alphabet transliterations) is as follows: Shemhamphorasch: The Divided Name 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 י ך K ל L ה H ה H ם ‎M י I ה H ל L א A ה H ך K א A ל L מ M ע O ס S י I ו V ל L א A ק Q ר R ב B ז Z ה H א A ל L ז Z ה H כ K ל L ה H ל L י I ל L ה H י I ו V ם ‎M י I ה H ל L ע O ו V ד D י I ת Th א A ה H ש Sh מ M ט T י I ו V 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 ה מ M ך K ל L י I ו V ל L א A ר R ש Sh י I ה H נ N ח Ch מ M י I נ N פ P ל L ן N ו V ה H ח Ch ש Sh ך K ו V י I א A ר R א A ת Th ה H ל L י I ל L ה H ו V ד D ק Q ח Ch ו V ר R ב B ם‎ M י I ה H ת Th א A ה H ו V ה H י I ך K ל L ו V 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 ו ן N נ N ע O ה H ד D ו V מ M ע O ע O ס S י I ו V ם‎ M ה H י I ר R ח Ch א A י I נ N מ M ח Ch נ N ה H י I ש Sh ר R א A ל L ו V י I ה H י I ה H ע O נ N ת Th א A ם‎ M ש Sh י I ו V ה H ל L י I ל L ה H ל L כ K ה H ז Z ע O ם‎ M י I 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 ה ם‎ M ה H י I ר R ח Ch א A מ M ד D מ M ע O י I ו V ם‎ M ה H י I נ N פ P מ M ו V י I ב B א A ב B י I ן N מ M ח Ch נ N ה H מ M צ Tz ר R י I ם‎ M ו V ב B ם‎ M י I מ M ה H ו V ע O ק Q ב B י I ו V ה H ב B ר R ח Ch ל L ם‎ M י I ה H LOOK AT Anton LaVey and satanism

Atheism started because some people examined the beliefs of religion and thought that science explained facts better. Atheists believe that science has provided more evidence towards our existence than the bible and that the events in the bible are easily discredited by science. Atheist beliefs come from thousands of years of exploration, experimentation questioning and fact gathering. While religious beliefs come from a book that has been edited hundreds and hundreds of times by various people, particularly men to gain patriarchal domination over women. Maybe the bible did have SOME truth in it, in the eyes of Atheists, but the modern bible today has been edited so many times that it has discredited itself. Atheists will tell you that if the bible is true because it is written in a book, then by that same logic, Harry Potter is also true. There are many Christians and Catholics who do believe in their religion and do practice their religion, but at the same time question some of the events in the bible, such as creationism. Many modern Christians are beginning to believe in evolution over creationism, for example, just because there is more proof, but they are not Atheist because they still believe in their god.

There are tens of proofs for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject ultimately becomes one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of the proofs.Here are a few.1) Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.Is there evidence against EvolutionGod's wisdom seen in His creationsMore about God's wisdom2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical. Professor Russel Stannard (a particle physicist) states: "The universe has been bent over backwards in order that intelligent life should exist...must have known we were coming."3) Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by instinct, sensed a need to worship something greater than themselves. No ancient societyever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.4) Tradition: There are events in human history which cannot be explained without God. Many people have their subjective stories that bend them in the direction of theism, but there are also historical events such as the Giving of the Torah to over two million people at Mount Sinai, which are underpinnings for the belief in God.5) Pascal's Wager: Belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there would be no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice is not agnosticism or atheism, but belief in God.6) Logic. Why is there reality rather than nothing? Aside from God's creating it, there are only five options:a) The universe is eternal and everything has always existed.- Even atheists have abandoned this possibility, especially because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.b) Nothing exists and all is an illusion. There is no reality; there is only nothing.- This possibility, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.c) The universe created itself. This is the idea that the universe and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within.- Like with the previous two, this makes a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It's impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself in order to create.d) Chance created the universe. The odds of winning the lottery are not very good; but given eons of time, everyone will win. While the odds of the universe spontaneously appearing are not minuscule, could it happen, given enough time?- This option is a dishonest sleight of hand that, like "survival of the fittest," amounts to nothing, because it implies that "chance" itself has quantitative causal power.The word "chance" refers to possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being an agent of creation, since chance is not a force. "What are the real chances of the universe being created by chance? Impossible. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire universe. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing because it has no causal power within it. It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by the curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, the power of creativity." (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)e) The universe is created by nothing. Simply put, nothing created the universe.- The problem here is that it is either a repetition of option "a" (the universe is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of "d." In our current universe, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied by sane people. While we often don't know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that there was no cause. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don't accept the answer "There is no cause. It came from nothing."

That's a very good question. I'd like to say those that are educated/learned in debate, logic etc. would not claim so, and would be agnostic atheists, who do not claim to know of God's lack of existence but are convinced as such, as opposed to gnostic atheists, whom you describe. From conversations with them they appear to be so utterly convinced that they decide it isn't possible. And I see what they mean, but they should learn to leave that tiny percent of doubt, in the interest of rationale. Those atheists such as myself who are agnostic atheists but very 'hardcore' often use the analogy of 'a-teapotists', as Richard Dawkins coined I believe. This is about not being able to disprove that a teapot is orbiting Saturn, but the chance is still there so we must be inclusive. Gnostic atheists don't care about this and go over the line, saying he doesn't exist, period. It is basically an irrational position, but better that than being religious, in my humble opinion.