We are all atheists

what exactly is your point? i see no question posed.

Is posing a question a necessity? I think it's a neat little quote to shove in the face of christians

I remember this quote. Me likes.

Speaking as an atheist with a potential vested interest in upholding the title phrase I regret to say that I cannot. This is because it assumes "atheists" merely reject "gods" when essentially they have no use for the concept. In general we do not "hold beliefs" we "are" those beliefs in the sense that they inform amnd direct our day to day activities. Our self integrity is dependent on such beliefs. An atheist's self-integrity is not based on "the absence of a deity" whereas the opposite is true for a "theist" (mono- or multi-)

People after my own heart.

I agree. I think I just had a warm fuzzy wash over my loins.

Captain could do with some more reading on the endless threads here.
Some threads have rich arguments on varied sides.


No, we are not all atheists.


That is an argument ploy of, frankly, little interest.


I'm a non theist who understands people thinking/feeling theistically, and those who speak of spirituality, though I'm not, by now, even a tad spiritual.


It's a continuum.

Ok, ok, I stereo, your avatar is driving me nuts.

Not that you need to change it, just saying.

I think you miss the point he's trying to make osso. The fact is that all theists here are athiests when it comes to Zeus, Venus, Aries, Thor etc etc. And so, other athiests like him (and me), believe in one god less than they do.

I agree with fresco. An atheist doesn't merely reject god. I think the difference is greater at the core. It is not just one notion that is discarded. It is the whole chain of concepts that are implied by this concept that is disregarded. Nothing left out, the atheist simply has a perception of existence that focuses on entirely different concepts.

Well, not entirely, because when an atheist speaks about cytogenesis and evolution theory, and a theist speaks about creation, I know that they are both speaking about the same thing. And they both agree that there was some kind of process. Exactly what that process was, and which parts of it are worth emphasizing are the matters that cannot be agreed on. But they are all spinning on variations of the same story; the story of how we came to be.

So atheists and theists have a completely different outlook on reality, but they are describing the same reality. The separating factor is not "god or no god", but rather how they each interpret experience, what is deemed interesting, important, nessecary etc. "God or no god" is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Like how some people believe in Luck while others dont. Luck by itself is not a relgious concept, but it has similar themes such as an outside force at work that has influence over their enviroment.

I have to say I believe in luck. But it doesn't involve "outside forces". I think it has to do with expectations and anticipations balanced against the actual experience in which luck is considered a factor.
Basically, if you expect things to go badly, then you will subconciously influence events; you will not be in a frame of mind that allows you to be open to oportunities. Your anticipation of disappointment can easily lead to the worst outcome. The one you want least, but which you are focusing on the most.

And the other way, if you think that it may turn out all right despite all indicatons to the contrary you might subconsciously affect matters in your favor.

Of course, this sort of thinking can leave a man bankrupt before he's even at the gamblingtable, but I think that it's important to distinguish between different types of luck. There's random chance, which I doubt is affected by your frame of mind. Lotteries and dice games, for instance. But when the variables aren't mere numbers, but reality, with people and their actions, luck becomes something that can be mastered to a degree. After all, it is ourselves who determine what's luck and who's lucky.

But this whole thing is perhaps a digression from the subject of atheism. Anyway, it's my personal atheistic concept on this particular issue. I think the same sentiment can be explained in religious terms, but I cannot see how that connects to reality. Theists can, apparently, and so god makes sense to them.

Then why not say we are all theists? I mean, I (as in those who attend a structured religion) simply believe in more God(s) than you.

But then there are those who believe that all religions and Gods are correct in some aspects (like me). What about them? Are they the only "theists?"

So in reality, I guess I'm right, as I'm simply restating the quote with a theist outlook instead of an atheist outlook. Do I really think I'm right? No, but it is interesting to look at that quote differently, isn't it?

How can someone who believes in no gods be a theist? I don't believe in any gods, luck, karma, psychics, spoon benders- the list goes on.

Exactly. Those who believe in a God or more than one God are still theists.

theism -
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

atheism -
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So, if we are to say that this quote is true, than we must also accept that my variation on this quote is true. If we are to say that my variation is false, than we must also deny this quote.

I think it's a neat little quote to shove in the face of chr
Why should you feel or think that Christians would be offended by this quote? Most Christians that I associate with are quite tolerant of the views of others and try to understand their views.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Does anyone see a difference here between dismissing "possible gods" and dismissing "God" altogether?