I can see the logic behind it, but the pathetic elitsm that follows most athiests i have met is a huge downside. Athiests use logic so much, it become flawed. Anything they say about religion is theoretical ignorance. Yet they think everything they say about religion is cold hard fact.
Overall athiests are logical, but a majority of them really have no idea what they're talking about half the time they speak about religion.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Isn't that the opposite of Atheism? AND science?
I like atheism. It makes sense to a bunch of people, and it fit their view of the world better than other answers. A belief in common sense and theories, rather than believing in deities, or a deity as those in the light of pure positivistic logic are not only flawed, but something that should not be. Or rather, does not exist. Would probably be the second choice to me, if God did forsake me. Would probably fit my way of life better as well.
As some have brought up, there are however atheists that move strongly towards converting anyone with a religion to ... non-religiousness. Often to the point that that is what they do. Convert. Threaten. Humiliate. Commit the fallacies of arguments that any scientist, or strong follower of positivistic views should avoid of all costs. And any scientist should know that it is a lost cause anyway. Kuhn's falsification makes it hard, if not impossible to base a theory on "there is no god(s)" and "religion is a lie". You can't falsify "god" or "religion", just as you can't falsify "no god" and "no religion". It's the laws of the metaphysic.
I like atheism. It makes sense to a bunch of people, and it fit their view of the world better than other answers. A belief in common sense and theories, rather than believing in deities, or a deity as those in the light of pure positivistic logic are not only flawed, but something that should not be. Or rather, does not exist. Would probably be the second choice to me, if God did forsake me. Would probably fit my way of life better as well. As some have brought up, there are however atheists that move strongly towards converting anyone with a religion to ... non-religiousness. Often to the point that that is what they do. Convert. Threaten. Humiliate. Commit the fallacies of arguments that any scientist, or strong follower of positivistic views should avoid of all costs. And any scientist should know that it is a lost cause anyway. Kuhn's falsification makes it hard, if not impossible to base a theory on "there is no god(s)" and "religion is a lie". You can't falsify "god" or "religion", just as you can't falsify "no god" and "no religion". It's the laws of the metaphysic.
On the "god is real/religion is true" matter: You can see the effects of religion, thus like gravity, religion must be something at least existing metaphysically. It just depends on how much significance you give the effects.
On the "god is real/religion is true" matter: You can see the effects of religion, thus like gravity, religion must be something at least existing metaphysically. It just depends on how much significance you give the effects.
We have explored much of our solar system and into are starting to gaze into the wider universe. We have also looked down, into the simplest of atoms and the electrical charges present within them. And at no point on this scale of tiny to tremendous have we seen a speck of God, if he is omnipresent - then where is he?
God doesn't exist. His sole "roof",the bible is been proven wrong time and time again.
To many people the bible simply being proven false isn't enough of an argument, and, were I Christian, I would need more to prove to me that he didn't exist.
Prove unicorns don't exist (And they are, ironically, in the Bible)
