0
Atheism
Atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1,002 Questions
What does there are no atheists in a foxhole mean?
The expression reflects the viewpoint of the religious that in times of extreme stress or danger atheists will drop their "pretend" position that there is no god and come crawling back to him seeking protection.
A counter position could be "Only atheists hide in foxholes" as believers know that the arm of the lord will protect them and there is no need to seek safety while they do their their "good" works on the battlefield..
Fit for Rivals, the band, does not publicly identify as atheist or promote any specific religious beliefs in their music or statements. Their songs typically focus on themes of love, relationships, and personal experiences rather than religious ideology. Individual members may have their own personal beliefs, but the band itself does not take a definitive stance on atheism.
The word "A" in Atheist means "not". In other words if Theists means belief in a god or gods, an atheist (non-theist) does not share this type of belief.
The letter "A" is also used by atheists as a symbol they are atheists.
Generally, it is also red, making an allusion to Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter," in which a woman had to wear a large, red "A" on her clothing to identify her as an adulteress, and was shunned as such.
This is not to say that atheists are adulterers, but more as a comparison that both the character in "The Scarlet Letter" and atheists are unfairly persecuted for their "crimes" which are only against religion.
Answer">AnswerThe A stands for "absence", and theism is the belief of at least one deity.
Atheism essentially means the Absence of Theism.
There is no hell, or heaven. Earth is where we live, where our ancestors lived.
Can a twelve year old be an atheist?
Albert Einstein, one of the great thinkers of the twentieth century, said that he lost his religion when he was twelve years old. So, yes, a twelve year old is mature enough to make this decision.
What religion does not worship a god?
Atheist There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':
1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.
2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.
While neither definition of atheism entails any personality traits of atheists or of those who do believe in a god or gods (sometimes referred to as 'theists'), both atheists and theists tend to believe that certain traits apply to all atheists/theists. Common myths about atheists include: all atheists are arrogant, immoral, rebellious, and/or intolerant; all atheists really believe in (the Christian) God and are simply in denial; all atheists are depressed and believe life is meaningless. Common myths about theists include: all theists are naive and/or intolerant; all theists don't really believe in their god(s) and just pretend to because they're afraid that if people realised that no god exists, there will be complete chaos; all theists are weak and look to their god(s) for comfort. It hardly needs to be said that while these myths apply to a select few individuals in each group, the claim that they apply to every atheist or every theist is false.
Negative atheists justify their lack of belief in god(s) by pointing out that no evidence exists for the existence of god(s), and justify their lack of disbelief by pointing out that no evidence exists for the nonexistence thereof. Positive atheists often assert that while no evidence for god(s) exists, it should be by default assumed that they do not, until evidence is found. Some also try to use logic to prove that God does not exist, but this is often attached by theists and weak atheists as being mere wordplay. Some theists and weak atheists also assert that logic is superficial and meaningless (which is an easily refutable claim), and that only one's inner feelings can lead them to truth. Some positive atheists (and deists), however, are led to their stance through their feelings. Some feel that because the world is filled with evil and malice, and all-loving, benevolent god cannot exist. Those who are led to their stance through this feeling, however, cannot justify their disbelief in a malevolent god in the same way. Some reject the idea of the Christian God because the Bible states that non-Christians are condemned to Hell, and reject the idea as being too disturbing. While the same argument can also be made against the gods of various other religions, including Islam and Zoroastrianism, it cannot be made against every god (in Judaism, for example, Hell does not exist).
"Do you believe in God?"
"No, I don't."
"Then you're an atheist?"
"I suppose. I don't believe God doesn't exist, so I could probably be called an agnostic instead. Some atheists may consider me a 'negative atheist', though."
"Don't you think atheists.. er, would I call them 'positive atheists'? Don't you think they're intolerant?"
"Yes, you'd call them 'positive atheists', and no, I wouldn't say they're all intolerant. While some may come off as arrogant, they're just unable to understand how you can believe in God; you probably come off as arrogant to them, also, because you're unable to understand how they can disbelieve in God. People on both sides really need to make an effort to be more tolerant, and to discuss their stance on religion without using childish, immature insults."
According to atheist how was the first human created?
The question should be "according to science" without reference to atheists. There is no atheist position on anything a atheists are not a group, cabal, organization, religion, brotherhood or similar. The overwhelming majority of theist and atheist scientists agree that humans resulted from a long process of evolution from other life forms starting from simple virus like entities.
By definition, an atheist is a person who does not believe in God, and atheism is disbelief in God.
What is a nonreligious person called?
a non religious person is a
Atheism:
"The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity". so that's what a non religious person is called i put a definition to
What do atheists think about prejudice?
Atheists do not all think with one mind much like religionists vary broadly in their thinking. An atheist may be less likely to hold prejudice toward others since religion is a major source for prejudice and atheists do not hold religious biases.
What action did communists take to promote atheism?
Communism, (as opposed to individual members of a communist society or communist party members would hold a wide range of beliefs in relation to the natural world) neither promotes nor prohibit atheism. Communist states are often considered as having state religions, insofar that there is a supreme, unquestionable leader who must be obeyed for a greater good. This is particularly evident in countries including North Korea today. Indeed, North Korea's supreme leader is said to have descended to earth from a cloud.
In the human mind.
Answer:
Atheism is the natural state of the human mind. Belief in deities and the supernatural is inculcated by society. As a consequence it was not created it simply is. Some people who have taken up religion turn from it and return to their natural state, but this is not creating atheism.
Are science teachers atheists?
Of course not.
Religious belief and science are two completely separate realms.Many people who are science teachers are also religious. Many scientists are also religious. The problem comes when the believer looks to their religious belief to find scientific explanations for life.
The word science is derived from a latin word meaning knowledge. It refers to a certain system of acquiring knowledge. Scientists use observation and experimentation to explain the natural world to us. This highly disciplined study of the natural world results in the body of knowledge we have acquired by using that system. The goal of science is to understand the workings of nature. By understanding what science is we can better understand that supernatural entities should play no role in scientific discourse.
Religious faith is the complete acceptance of some particular religious doctrine in the complete absence of any proof.
Can an atheist practice namasmaran?
Yes. An atheist can practice namasmaran. Just as in case of algebric sums, we assume a value X, for unknown entity and then arrive at it, in the same way; in namasmaran, we remember and repeat a name entitled for the true self and in the process arrive at it.
If you're not sure about god are you an atheist?
No. An atheist (no god or without god) is sure that they don't believe in gods. However not being sure has a name as well, it is most often called agnostic (not knowing) behavior.
From "not being sure" you may progress through studying the question and discussing the issue to being either an atheist, agnostic or theist. A fourth option, non-theist, best describes groups like Buddhists who don't feel the issue of whether there is a god or not is worthwhile pursuing.
If you mean Alexander the Great, then no - he live in the period of classical Greek gods and according to some reports, believed himself to be the son of Zeus.
Will someone explain to me exactly what evolution is and why atheists believe it?
Evolution is a theory put forth by a man called Charles Darwin. He postulated that animals evolve over time, and that when animals gain favorable mutations, it increases their chances of survival and therefore mating. When they mate they pass on their mutations to their young and spread the change throughout the species. Atheists, who don't believe in a god(s), find that this is the most likely way that animals came to be on earth.
See related links.
Was alister crowley an atheist?
No, Alister Crowley was more of an eclectic pagan. Atheists reject all supernatural or metaphysical phenomena, while Crowley was known for seances and blood rituals to speak to the dead.
Not necessarily; the humanist philosophy places primary importance with humanity, but that is not incompatible with a belief in god (or gods); for example, a deist - who believes in a creator god, but not a god that takes a day to day interest in the activities of the world may well be a humanist as well.
Do prestarians believe in the devil?
Perhaps you are thinking of Presbyterians?
If so, then the answer is: some do and some don't.
Presbyterians, as a rule, are not atheists.
Why are deism and Christianity incompatible?
Deism is a belief that there is a Creator, but that after the act of creation he took no further interest in his creation. The whole essence of Christianity, in all its forms, is that God is interested in our welfare and does intercede. Some of the Founding Fathers of the United States are believed to have been deists.
What is the atheistic existialism on sufferring and dealth?
We believe both suffering and death occur, so that means they exist.
What is the book The Greatest Hoax on Earth about?
The full title of this book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth:Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' is another rebuttal by creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. It attempts to answer Richard Dawkins recent work ''The Greatest Show on Earth.''
Dawkins outlined in his book what he regards as the best evolutionary evidences -something he realised he had not done in a number of his previous works. Dr. Sarfati refutes each alleged evidence point by point.
Among a number of things which Dawkins states is his often-repeated assertion that the eye is badly designed, due to the backwards-facing retina. Sarfati says this is questionable, since Dawkins' design would put the opaque choroid layer of blood vessels at the front of the eye -which would be like having a continuous black eye his other suggestion would make it impossible for regeneration after exposure to bright light and so it would take months for us to be able to see again each time we looked outside on a bright day. Sarfati quotes opthalmologist Dr. Goerge Marshall who stated "The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy."
Sarfati also states that Dawkins continues to use straw-man arguments -pointing out things which creationists do not believe, in order to make his case. Sarfati suggests that Dawkins use of straw-men is inexcusable -that Dawkins should find out and address and refute what creationists actually say.
Answer
In reference to the bad design Dawkins alleges for the human eye (and Sarfati's refutation):
Sarfati states (in response to Dawkins comments about the alleged 'backward wiriing') "Once more, Dawkins shows no understanding of the need to regenerate the photocells, which necessitates this 'backward wiring'. (Greatest Hoax, p 273) Earlier Sarfati explains why Dawkins' allegedly superior design is nothing of the sort as it "would require either - the choroid in front of the retina-but the choroid is opaque....so this would be as useless as an eye with a hemorrhage! - Photoreceptors not in contact with the RPE or choroid at all- but without a rich blood supply to regenerate, then it would probably take months before we could see properly after we were photographed with a flashbulb or we glanced at some bright object." (Greatest Hoax p 271-272) Thus Sarfati shows that Dawkins' alleged better design is not better at all.
Sarfati's overall thrust is to demonstrate the ignorance of Dawkins in relation to the overall structure of the human eye, which does what it does very well, just as the octopus eye serves the octopus very well, in its particular environment. He also points out that the octopus does not see colour as humans can, nor is their vision particularly sharp. Sarfati also refers to a statement by ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall who said "The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anaotomy." (Greatest Hoax p 271). He also refers to the work of ophthalmologist Peter Gurney who also has written a thorough refutation of the idea that the human eye is badly designed (op. cit. p 274).
At the end of this section Sarfati also makes the point that alleging bad design does not in any way demonstrate how evolution created the eye in the first place.
Sarfati acknowledges in his epilogue that this subject is a big one. A listing of the chapter headings certainly reveals this to be so:
1. Bait-and-switch.
2. Species and Kinds.
3. Natural Selection.
4. Evolution before our very eyes?
5. Embryos and self-assembly.
6. Common ancestry or common design?
7. Where are the transitional fossils?
8. The links are still missing.
9. Ape-men?
10. Geographical distribution.
11. Is the earth ancient?
12. Young world evidence.
13. Origin of Life.
14. Lost structures:evolution or devolution?
15. 'Bad design':evidence for evolution?
16. "Nature red in tooth and claw"
17. Evolution, science,history and religion.
The above list shows that he has met Dawkins on a wide field of alleged evolutionary evidence. Acknowledging the limitations of such a work and the greatness of the topic he points to the 7000+ articles available on one creationist website alone (Creation Ministries International). He highlights the repeated misrepresentation of the creationist position by Dawkins and suggests it is better to read what creationists actually say and believe than the version presented by Dawkins (examples scattered throughout the book).
What does it mean if you don't have a religion?
It can mean several things. It can mean that you don't believe in God or in gods (atheism); it can mean that you believe that it can't be known for sure whether there is a God or not; it can mean that you do believe in God, but are disappointed with organized religion.
