I am an atheist

I am an atheist

  • Leave A Comment

    Leave a comment ?

    58 Responses to I am an atheist

    1. I don’t have a set religion, or lack there of.

      I don’t even care if that means I’m categorized as an “atheist” because when you categorize something, people think you’re in a certain group, in this case, a religious one.

      I don’t acknowledge any gods or religions.

      I am above your pissant beliefs


    2. I disagree. Comparing religion to science is irrelevant at best. Now when people try throw shit like Intelligent Design in the mix; that is fucking annoying.

      I’m an atheist, btw.


      • Science is a religion. People say they ‘believe’ in evolution. Most of the time people who say this don’t even understand evolution, it limitations or flaws. And evolution is just a theory. One that is far from complete. Still people believe in with the same mindless rigour as creationist’s. Its as arrogant to believe that there is no intelligence behind the existence of the universe as it is to believe that if you sail to far into the horizon you will fall off the face of the Earth. Science is the new bullshit people hide behind when they don’t know the answers. And, in truth, no one knows any answers. If some one claims to be a scientist then that person should also know that science knows fuck all about the universe. At best atheism is a good belief to follow if you can’t be bothered being open minded about the infinite possibilities of the existence. Science is a religion and scientists are the priests. They decide what is correct and how to quantify it and believe it until someone moves the goal posts. And instead of people trying to come together to understand this everyone just argues over who is right and who is wrong. We are all right and wrong at the same time and until we are in a truly subjective position one can only take ones beliefs and religious. For all you know we are just a AI simulation in some supper computer created by our future selves…or not. And science claims to have proof and that is why people get so excited about it. I challenge anyone here to prove they exist. Once you have done that maybe you can prove the universe also exists. Once you have done that you will probably be God.


    3. I’d like to see an atheist who’s quiet about it. Same with the religious.


      • Yeah, those would be all the ones you don’t know exist. Think about what you say.


      • You would be amazed at how many quiet atheists there are, afraid of losing their job, having their religious spouse leave them and take the kids, or are afraid of their frighteningly christianist neighbors.

        A couple friends of mine are former ministers, both have said that they have minister/ preacher/ pastor friends who are atheist and are still in the pulpit. What can they do if they quit? They have no marketable skills. No references. Some even fear violent reprisal from their congregation (one of my two apostate friends received death threats and lived in hiding for a month while he worked on moving his family to another state).

        We godless make up between 5 and 10 percent of the US population and are growing faster than any religious group. You know some quiet atheists, but aren’t aware of it.


    4. Stupid argument. I can give a fuck about science and religion and still be an atheist. And I’m willing to bet there were mother fuckers before the scientific method that were all like “nut uh, that shit’s be stupid” when they talked about religion.


    5. My God is the all mighty DOLLAR!


    6. Proof is the burden of the prosecution.Show me.


    7. Agnosticism. The only sensible choice.


      • Do you believe in god? You don’t know? You are completely 50-50 split?

        If you don’t believe and don’t have enough certainty to make a statement that god absolutely does not exist, then you are an agnostic atheist.


    8. “You must prove your religion using my religion”

      Science is a religion. It has basic, unprovable assumptions which are its most sacred tenets. These are:

      #1–Everything has natural causes
      #2–We can learn these causes through observation
      #3–These causes are constant and predictable

      The corollary to #1 would be that there are no super-natural causes. This must be assumed, otherwise we cannot predict how nature will act, and the scientific method becomes unreliable. The apparent reliability of the scientific method can only prove that, if a supernatural being exists, he lets nature take its course (as far as the scientific establishment can observe).

      So, how do you prove the existence of a being with a method that must assume he does not exist? What if that assumption is wrong?

      I love science. I profess my faith in its system when I learn about the natural world which operates by its laws. I also believe that a God exists who wants us to learn, and therefore does not interfere with our exploration of the world around us. My reasons for this belief cannot be proven with the scientific method any more than relativity can be proven with references to the Bible, Qur’an, Talmud, Vedas, etc. The religions of Faith and Science use different languages, have different systems for acquiring knowledge, and are both useful in their sphere. True religion and true science lead to the same ultimate Truth.


      • I disagree.
        We can readily assume that there are no supernatural causes because…
        1. none have been observed
        2. existing equations (some highly complex) that describe our world can be solved using only natural elements, making the discovery of something supernatural at work highly improbable

        Science is not a religion. Its basic assumptions are based on logic, which requires no leap of faith.

        “I also believe that a God exists who wants us to learn, and therefore does not interfere with our exploration of the world around us.”
        To quote Subotai from the first Conan movie, “what good is he then?” What use is there of such a god? Why should he even exist and why would it matter to us?


        • “We can readily assume that there are no supernatural causes because…
          1. none have been observed”

          Sounds a little like circular logic to me. And science is always making predictions about stuff that exists without first observing it. Gravitons, black holes, extra dimensions, lots of really tiny shit. Black holes were assumed to exist before they were observed. Gravitons are still causing problems for science (or so I understand). Again its just a belief structure. And a God who sits back and lets things happen has the use of doing exactly that.


          • The belief structures of a scientist and the belief structures of a religious person are very different – one’s are based on an educated guess about what could be, whereas the other’s are driven by ancient myths, the fear of death or a similar thing, with little tangible reasoning.

            I agree, “None have been observed” is a weak argument on its own, but it makes sense combined with the second point that I provided. And the beauty of science is that there’s a lot of stuff that we don’t understand fully (like Gravitons and stuff like that) but one day we will, and uncover even greater mysteries to solve. Such perpetual progression is, in a metaphysical sense, in my opinion similar to how life evolves and works through the process of natural selection.

            This ever broadening scope is diametrically opposed to religions, which state that all knowledge eventually comes down to a single point or entity, much like that philosopher’s god that you describe, or any other deity. The paths of scientific knowledge lead to infinity, which is appropriate for a (possibly) infinitely large and complex universe, while all paths that religious experience provides eventually lead to a single centrum, making the widening of one’s view rather pointless.


            • I completely agree with you. But still given the infinite nature of existence I would still say it is fool hardy to make any assumptions about anything. I strongly agree that as a belief structure science tries to go further than religion is explaining how things work. But given that any belief structure by default limits ones perspective I do not trust science much more than religion. To me its just another way of dividing people. You’re a scientist, you’re a Christian, you’re a black person. We take science as fact these days and I think that is dangerous. Not many people have been given the opportunity to observe and experiment on these points so we take what others have told us to be true as fact. It these similarities between science and religion that concerns me.

              It may well be science only allows us to quantify our experience. What I mean is we can quantify gravity in the way we do because this is the only way we are capable of experiencing it. It may be that it works very differently to how we experience it and thus quantify it.

              The biggest problem I find with science is that is assumes that reality is external and that we can be objective observers of that reality. If this is not the case then it means science is no more than a nice idea. A pretty picture or melodic song with no more meaning than that.

              I think the key is in infinity. If existence (not just the universe) is infinite then there may be many places in existence where there are Gods and many where there are none. The true nature of existence is far beyond out comprehension at this point. Given this I will stick by my statements that nothing can be proven and nobody is wrong or should even be told they are. Everything and everybody is merely some expression the infinite whole and thus everything is true from at least one perspective in that infinite array of experience.

              Not saying anyone is wrong just saying it dangerous to assume other people are wrong because they think differently to you.
              The bigest problem I find with science is that is assumes that reality is external and that we can be objective observers of that reality. If this is not the case then it means science is no more than a nice idea. A pretty picture or melodic song with no more meaning than that.

              I think the key is in infinity. If existance (not just the universe) is infinite then there may be many places in existance where there are Gods and many where there are none. The true nature of existance is far beyond out comprehension at this point. Given this I will stick by my statements that nothing can be proven and nobody is wrong or should even be told they are. Everything and everybody is merely some expresion the inifinate whole.

              I like your ideas and how you present them. Thanks for the interaction.


            • shorter titanzero: Ooh, the universe is sooooo big! And sooooo infinite, there just has to be a god! I don’t understand physics, or really any science, so I make unfounded and unfalsifiable claims based on my prideful ignorance, because infinity means I might be right! In fact, I’ll repeat myself so that infinity can get two copies! Nobody can be wrong and everybody is right!

              Reality isn’t external because there is no internal. Your brain is a mechanical, chemical and electrical means by which your body can interact with the universe. Science is a method for limiting subjective observations and attempting objective observation. Reality is not beyond our comprehension. We comprehend subatomic particles, have strong theories on star formation, evidence based theories regarding the formation of the universe and the evolution of life. We can see planets orbiting stars with our strongest telescopes. Just because you have latched on to the brain destroying postmoderist movement does not mean that nothing is wrong and everything is right. It only means that you are so afraid of failure that you embraced a worldview that eliminates it.

              Shorter fracked again: Fuck you and don’t be an idiot.


            • “Fuck you and don’t be an idiot.”

              So in short a very weak argument.

              The rest of what you have said is just something repeated from a book you pretended to understand. You want to argue some science then present some else fuck off.


            • titanzero. I am a scientist. I have a PhD. I teach biology to college students and am starting up a small research lab. My name is on several peer reviewed papers. I don’t need to present anything to you beyond what I already did, because that was science, you small minded neo-Luddite. Understanding things is my job and my life. You on the other hand make it a lifestyle to wallow in ignorance, because understanding the world is just too much to be bothered with. Simply because you don’t understand something does not mean that nobody does. And fucking thank FSM for that!

              There is no evidence whatsoever for a dualistic concept of the mind. The mind is a product of the brain.

              We understand a tremendous amount about the atom, how bonds are formed, what particles make up an atom and what particles make up those particles. Explanations of how photosynthesis and DNA double strand formation are being developed on a quantum scale, something that was thought impossible just a decade ago. That is science. Saying that we don’t understand everything so we don’t understand anything is one of the most hopeless and depressing things a person could possibly say in the light of what has been uncovered and discovered by people who have actually earned the oxygen that they use instead of an oxygen thief like yourself.

              We have excellent theories regarding stellar evolution. Do you dispute this? It is also science, as is the fact that the Big Bang Theory is based on excellent evidence. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation of how life evolves, and while it has been modified in its 150 years due in part to an increase in understanding of genetics, it is still the best explanation and will likely continue to be. This is science. We have observed and photographed two gas giant planets orbiting two stars. Do you have any idea how fucking incredible that is? It is science!

              It is science and science works.

              If you have an issue with science and don’t want to know fuck all about it, as your mindless repetition of “just a theory” demonstrates, then pick up a textbook and don’t prove to scientists that you are a pridefully ignorant twit.

              Please, again, quit using the fruits of technology and science if it is your intent to not understand the least bit about them.


            • “you small minded neo-Luddite”

              “Understanding things is my job and my life.”

              “by people who have actually earned the oxygen that they use instead of an oxygen thief like yourself.”

              “Please, again, quit using the fruits of technology and science if it is your intent to not understand the least bit about them.”

              Kinda makes you sound like a prick. No offense mate but if you a teacher I hope my children never come across you. You are rude, arrogant, close minded and lack the patience a teacher should have.

              Your elitist, fundamentalist attitude does you or your science no favors. You are unwilling to consider the possibility that even one of the MANY assumptions in science could be wrong. And if it were that everything you believe to be true is also wrong. Does that sound like a objective, open minded world view?

              You are a close minded repeater. Present some theory that is 100% proved and fact and requires no assumptions to make it possible. There is nothing. You are a religious fanatic and just as rude as every religious fanatic everywhere. My point is, has always been and will always be, that science is a religion. A clever one but a religion none the less.


            • You clearly have no idea that words have meanings. Different words; different meanings, pretty crafty huh?


            • Fundamentalist? Another word you don’t know the meaning of.

              There is no such thing as a 100% correct theory. You mean theorem, which is a mathematical construct.

              I would like for something in science to be proven wrong, because when something is shown to be wrong, we know something new and can advance our knowledge in another direction.

              But your concern trolling is noted.


            • And really, you can dislike my tone all you like, but you can’t stand toe to toe with me on science. I hope your spawn are in my class next semester. I love opening minds up to the world around them, illuminated by science instead of darkened by a demon haunted night. Nothing is more important than lifting the veil of superstition that humans have wallowed in since they thought that the moon was eating the sun.


            • i’m a scientist, sure. I know that evolution is a fact, and that the volcanic vents increased the rate of reaction to the point where there is no problem with abiogenesis, however, the other day when i was syringe feeding infant crows and blue jays, i began to think of all the evolutionary mechanics that would involve spawning a creature that would not survive unless its parents regurgitated food into its mouth.’

              I’m not purporting any sort of intelligent design, because I’m attaching ‘meaning’, a subjective thing that is probably a misfire in the brain, to certain facets of reality, but because of this emotional retardation, I find it difficult to doubt the existence of some sort of design.


            • Evolution doesn’t give perfection, just good enough to reproduce and maintain a population. As a mammal, you feed from a modified set of sweat glands as an infant. Thats even weirder than regurgitation.

              But hey, you get to work with corvids. Those are some of my favorite birds out there. Frighteningly smart little things.


            • I would love to reply to your post, but I sort of have to go the woods for a week, starting very soon. I’ll just reply to one point of your post.

              “The bigest problem I find with science is that is assumes that reality is external and that we can be objective observers of that reality.”

              True, mankind’s entire understanding of the universe is based on his senses and the way his brain works. We even give most of our gods the same qualities that we share. I am certain that our perception of even the most mundane aspects of the world is faulty and that beings or entities with a vastly better perception are possible, if not probable. However, this doesn’t really diminish the value and truthfulness of our science. I believe (due to the lack of any evidence to the contrary) that the entire universe shares the same basic rules and laws. All of our sciences share the same imperfections of the mammalian brain that conceived it. Thus, it stands to reason that the margin of error between our understanding of the world and the true reality is the same in pretty much every field.

              So, my point is, we just have to determine and mitigate the error constant and we’ll be closer to a truthful equation on the knowledge of the universe. 🙂


            • Thanks for your insight. Was nice to have a discussion rather than an insult ridden argument. Enjoy your week in the woods. Can I leave you with this thought I find comforting. The knowledge of the universe is within us. We just need to spend more time thinking and exploring and less time bombing the shit out of each other. WHEN humanity gives over to a more peaceful way of life I think we will find our knowledge coming on in leaps and bounds. I am sure we can quantify the universe but will that be the end? I think not! And that gives me great comfort and hope for the future of our understanding.


        • What is it exactly that you’re disagreeing with? “We can readily assume…” and “existing equations…can be solved…” merely state that you prescribe to the religion and you are making appeals to its own internal logic.

          I’m not saying anything new or from the fringe — my link isn’t from a religious psuedo-science program, its from UC Berkeley. This was taught to me at my own (very liberal) university. It is the philosophical foundation of all sciences.

          What you are disagreeing with must be that I am calling this belief system (which I share) a religion. How do you define religion? Requiring a leap of faith? Does it have to be a leap, or will a casual step do? The fact that we can observe that the natural world follows natural laws is an excellent argument for, and effective proof that, it is a good system. But it is not absolute proof, we merely assume that it is. It is an easy assumption, yes, but an assumption nonetheless.

          You said:
          We can readily assume that there are no supernatural causes because…
          1. none have been observed
          Which is understood to mean “…by science”, meaning:
          1. none have been observed [by measurement that has been published in a credible journal and been corroborated by results reproduced by unbiased peers]
          Anything not peer-reviewed and reproducible is not published science.

          I also assume that you mean:
          1. none have been observed [by you]
          That’s fine, but logically, does it follow that
          1. none have been observed [by me]

          Is there anything I have said that is logically wrong? Or have all of you who disagree just taken offense at my calling your beliefs a “religion” in the same way a Christian or Hindu would take offense at their beliefs being called “ancient myths”?


      • Until science can bring someone back from the dead with a observational field report written up, I’m going to say the balls still up in the air on this one.


    9. Agnosticism, for me, is the only sensible way to go. Religious people cant prove their beliefs are real, and atheists cant prove that they aren’t. Both points of view have the same substance.

      The burden of proof doesn’t “lay” with anyone. People should just believe what they want, whether it’s a god or Hawking’s or the Cthulhu, as long as they keep it to themselves.


      • Atheism has nothing to do with mother fucking proof.

        The absence of faith is atheism. That easy. There are no other prerequisites. Don’t mean I give a fuck about evolution. Don’t mean I give a fuck about the Big Bang, or anything between that and today. I don’t have any preoccupation with faith. Atheism. That’s what it is.


    10. God damn it, Do you have to post this shit every fucking day? Why dont you start a fucking church so you can preach this shit to people who give a fuck.


    11. I’m an atheist, but I don’t like announcing it incase I get roped in with another bunch of self-righteous wankers who have figured out something very simple. Atheism is very easy to explain, however religion is a part of a fundamental human weakness that no logic can reach, and if you haven’t figured that out yet, you’re not really as smart as you think you are.


    12. I don’t like to be categorised. I’m just me. I have my ideas and theories which change now and then. I HOPE there’s something ‘magical’ after I die but I find it highly unlikely that there is. I expect to be eaten by worms which in turn will get eaten by birds so in effect I will be flying through the sky. Until I get eaten by a cat or an owl. I like owls though, and cats so I suppose that wouldn’t be so bad…


    13. I’m not an atheist.

      You’re all just fucking infantilised fuckers who believe in a more complex version of Santa Claus.


    14. I am a skeptical agnostic. There might be a god, I just seriously doubt it’s any of the current ones that are popular.

      I had a kind of epiphany aged about 9 or so, I was being told at school that leading a good life and being kind to others was required to build a bridge to get to heaven. But to complete that bridge you had to believe in Jesus.

      I looked around at the other kids and knew for a fact that not all of them were Christian. I’d also been reading a lot about undiscovered tribes in jungles who had no contact with the outside world. So I, as a child, was being told that anyone who didn’t believe in Jesus, including those who had been raised differently or had just never heard of him, would be horribly tortured for all eternity.

      I couldn’t imagine anything that could create something as amazing as the universe being such a dick, so I rejected Christianity. The End.


    15. i think you are an atheist because is cool.

      no i didnt read all the other comments tldr


    16. Science is about proofs, religion about faith.

      Your argument is invalid.


    17. if i put an image about a christian shoutign about something godly and next to this image another one about an atheist stating logic. are they gone be diferent or the same?

      to me this thing about atheist an theist its starting to get old and boring no one is bringing any interesting just plain old shit. ooo theist belive in nothign ooo atheist belive in nothing ooo. fuck you both right in the ass, and any other orifice you both have. fuck you.
      or as horatio will say.


    18. one question to the scienthesticle. what the theory for the creation of the universe? i dont remember. sorry me too stupid señor.


    19. We kept calling it that from the beginning. McQueen was emotional, experiential. We wanted this to be intellectual,”


    Leave a Comment

    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas