Atheist logic

You are demonstrably wrong about that.

Even if belief in God is based on their personal experiences or the experiences of others who profess to have experienced him, that is not 'nothing'. Even if many of them are delusional, that doesn't mean all of them are.

OTOH, atheism does not have even that to hang its hat on. There is no one around to tell you either factually or by revelation that they experienced 'No God'. Atheists who actively believe there is no God truly have Nothing to support their belief.

Edgar is right about atheists not being a monolithic block. I am not addressing atheists who simply do not have enough interest to even inquire about his existence or comment in a forum like this. They don't even open a thread like this.

Mere assumption on your part, not even talking about calling it belief..

Then why even write about them?

It's amazing how you distort everything to suit your encounter and conversation with god..

Because I was addressing the ones who do.

I think you missed the point. If you had enough interest to click on the thread then you aren't in the sub-group of atheists who don't.

Maybe you are in one of the sub-groups of atheism who do it because they just like to heckle theists.

Which one are you?

I don't accept tags, especially coming from you, who knows very little about atheists.

Why are you trying to catalog them?

In these matters, I'm a loner..

The question is this; Is Atheism superior to theism? The OP suggests that theism is the cause of a list of ills, and that Atheism must be "promoted".

In my opinion atheism (if it is simply the lack of belief in a deity) is in no way superior to theism. Atheists are just as prone to superstition and no more cruel or kind or logical than theists.

After all human beings are complex. We are all able to act reasonably and kind, or irrationally and unkind. This is true of both theists and atheists.

The problem happens when Atheists see themselves as superior to theists; either in terms of reason or ethics. Of course, if they didn't... then there wouldn't be anything to discuss on this thread.

That's why I don't like the word atheist. I think it was started by a misled human who said "if you don't believe the right thing to believe you are an against godder", an "atheist".
Since there's no god, I'm not against a non existence, I'm a human in infinity I'm an infinitist. To me human life is most sacred, just because there's no afterlife we can enjoy this one. To me , since there is no god, the human brain was what came up with the rules and laws of our society. The believers and non believers all have the same brain with thoughts and emotions. Why do the godders think non godders can't make good rules for society?
We can , we do.

@maxdancona

No, it's not about atheists being better than theists.

It's about the inanity of the concept of god and the need for a part of the humankind to refer to a "superior" being that is controlling their lives.

Based on simple logic, it has no leg to stand on.

Same with misogynistic assholes thinking that women are inferior to men.

I don't know whether this is supposed to be a joke or not. But either way ithe logical contradiction here is funny.

If you insist that women are "inane", then you aren't treating them as equals, are you.

See?

You cannot even distinguish the difference between people's value and concepts based on logic.

How can you then see if there is contradiction?

I am an atheist but I would not use a strong and contemptuous word like 'inane' to describe the concept of God. You'd have to trash som much of human history and culture. If I were a Christian I would be a process theologian or maybe a nonrealist (like the Sea of Faith network).

I understand that people can be unconciously influenced by their milieu, the society they were brought up in.

Some atheists can display this uncertainty, even though they have a well thought reasoning.

Like they were afraid that they would discover one day that god exists.

So many ways to try to explain something.
I look at the "god" person as the righteous person who decides that we all should be limited to 65 mph. So he gets in the left lane and doesn't drive
over 65 mph. He's going to be the enforcer of the law.
Why do we tolerate the "religious" to often be "exempt"?
Is this a "yeah but" of a godder ?
Today I live today, some day I'll live some day.
Get your god out of my face.

Interesting. You reject tags, then give yourself one.

Happy trails atheist loner. I get tagged as fundy-Christian all the time, so I feel your pain

I remember going to a temple in Hong Kong where they practice Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism.
http://www.chinahighlights.com/hong-kong/attraction/wong-tai-sin-temple.htm

Born again christian? How about born again buddhist? Born again Hindu?

Here: take your pick.
[hide]
1 Abrahamic religions
1.1 Bábism
1.2 Bahá'í Faith
1.3 Christianity
1.3.1 Other Christian
1.3.2 No-longer-extant Christian groups
1.4 Latter-Day Saints movement (Mormonism)
1.5 Gnosticism
1.6 Islam
1.7 Druze
1.8 Judaism and related religions
1.9 Black Hebrew Israelites
1.10 Rastafari movement
1.11 Mandaeans and Sabians
1.12 Shabakism
2 Indian religions
2.1 Bhakti movement
2.2 Buddhism
2.3 Din-e Ilahi
2.4 Hinduism
2.5 Jainism
2.6 Meivazhi
2.7 Sikhism
3 Iranian religions
3.1 Zoroastrianism
3.2 Gnostic religions
3.3 Bábí movement
3.4 Yazdânism
4 East Asian religions
4.1 Confucianism
4.2 Shinto
4.2.1 Shinto-inspired religions
4.3 Taoism
4.3.1 Contemporary Taoism-inspired religions
4.4 Other
4.4.1 Chinese
4.4.2 Korean
4.4.3 Vietnamese
5 African diasporic religions
6 Mesoamerican religions
7 Indigenous traditional religions
7.1 African
7.2 North American
7.3 Eurasian
7.4 Oceania/Pacific
7.4.1 Cargo cults
8 Historical polytheism
8.1 Ancient Near Eastern
8.2 Indo-European
8.2.1 Hellenistic
8.3 Uralic
9 Mysticism and occult
9.1 Esotericism and mysticism
9.1.1 Western mystery tradition
9.2 Occult and magic
10 Modern Paganism
10.1 Syncretic
10.2 Ethnic
11 New religious movements
11.1 Race-based
11.1.1 Black
11.1.2 White
11.1.3 Native American
11.2 New Thought
11.3 Shinshukyo
12 Left-hand path religions
13 Post-theistic and naturalistic religions

I think you are deluding yourself Timur. Christian thinkers and writers have based their beliefs on logic, the same as you claim to have done. As have thinkers of other faiths and cultural backgrounds.

Science has no system of values. Nature doesn't value freedom, or human existence, or rights. We may be able to develop a system of physics that can make predictions about how particles act based on math... but this fails when it comes to values or meaning.

To develop any system of values, you must start with a set of unprovable axioms. There is no empirical way to reach an set of values. You need to accept certain core beliefs on "faith"... things you believe because you want to believe them. Once you have chosen a set of things you believe without proof, then you can use logic to develop a larger system of beliefs.

In this way you, as an atheist, are no different than a believer in any religion.

If you would like a specific example... tell me if you believe in human rights?

Okay, where's the observable evidence of your god(s)?

Where is the observable evidence of your beliefs about values or meaning?

The point is that most people, atheists included, based their values on and gain meaning from beliefs for which there is no proof. Any expression of superiority from atheists is unwarranted. If you don't have any unprovable beliefs about values, then I don't know why you would be participating in this discussion.

Just because you don't believe in gods doesn't mean that you don't live with superstitions, or that your superstitions are any more logical than people who believe in God (or multiple gods).

values or meanings are subjective concepts.
Any claim made must have a method to validate it. There is no way to prove any god or gods.

You asked, "Is atheism superior to theism?"
It's not about 'superiority.' It's about validity.

Most modern Americans believe that there are implicit human rights. We believe that freedom is essential and that equality is a moral imperative.

If you don't believe these things, or if you believe that these are subjective values that are only true because we want them to be true. Then I will concede the argument. If you do believe that there are real human rights to which every human is implicitly entitled... then you have a belief that is as unprovable as any deity.

Of course, if these are subjective values, then the OP has a problem. He seems to be saying that the results of religion are morally wrong. Of course if values are subjective, than the original statements are meaningless. It was the claim that atheism must be "promoted" that most motivated me to jump into this discussion.

There is no reason for "Atheists" to be anti-religion... unless they have some unprovable values that conflict with religion.