Nature works under laws and specific systems; science explores these systems and harnesses them in service of humanity. Had there been no laws and systems in nature, and only chaos; there would have been no science.
Had the atheists anything to do with science they would have at least formed some civil system in their life. They do not have any code for their life; so they are as many denominations as their numbers; no uniformity of thought or action in them.
It's called freedom and individuality parra, not a concept you would understand.
I have lived my life with that freedom, and managed to be very happy and successful, just like millions of others.
I'm not an atheist but have known a few. They do live by ethical codes and moral systems - they just didn't get them from religion. That in itself does not mean they have no civil systems in their lives.
Which life code they follow? Name the book, please
Don't know about any books, but the "Golden Rule" is one code they live by. And no, the golden rule did not come from the bible.
Do you mean the following:
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code, or morality that essentially states either of the following:
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive form)
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule)
I don't think it has been invented by the atheists.
It has already been stated by Muhammad in a tradition; and by Jesus in the Bible.
We Muslims believe in it.
I never said it was invented by atheists. I said that some atheists follow it without it having anything to do with religion.
Like if religious people ever follow the Golden rules. It's a joke in itself. The church is a club of bigots more than anything else. Now how many evil doers come from the church club? Let me see... the main place where child molesters are located pretending to be church leaders.
Not everyone is so morally and ethically challenged that they must get their "code" from millennia old writings of murderous and depraved goat herders with little idea of right and wrong. Rather, they can discern these things without input from religious zealots primarily interested in maintaining their own power base.
Yeah, Like anyone can think up a code. By the way...just where did your moral code come from? Is there a lot of choices, which could be considered moral? Murderous goatherders? Oh, my. And depraved, too! Oh, my, oh my! Don't kill. Murderous...depraved! Don't steal. How dare those depraved, murderous goatherders! Don't mess with your neighbor's wife. Now, I REALLY have to draw the line here!
Something you are not familiar with, but there are plenty of people who understand morality(proper use of conscience), which apparently you do not.
Personally, I've have found the key character trait required, so one never has to go against their own conscience and that trait would be Integrity. Something else you wouldn't know anything about.
Name the book?
As an atheist, I am capable of reading, understanding, and learning from more than one book.
And I'm even capable of choosing which ones are worth reading, rather than just reading what some guy in a building with a tower on it told me to read and then spewing it out to anyone who will listen without thinking.
Yet the atheists- the People of Doubt, all combined, could not compile a Code Book for their life.
You managed to ignore my point. Atheist have compiled lots of 'code books for life'. You have only one, and its hopelessly out of date.
The fact that you have been hopelessly indoctrinated into a particular version of a "Code Book" is one major aspect that separates believers from atheists.
You present a false dilemma in that atheists even require such a book.
No one needs a code book. The fact that humans flourished as a species before the introduction of your nonsensical religion is proof that man has always had morals. It is you, assuming this ridiculous perception, that is making it impossible for you to understand. There is no need for a religious text in having a moral code. Period.
Name the book??? Christians [and other sects] don't follow the instructions in their divine stone and bronze age tome of contradictory drivel. Yet they call themselves Christians or whatever.
Frankly, your post is of the type that scares the metaphorical Hell out of me. Socio and Psychopaths have that tendency.
Your posts often indicate terminal amorality. You can't be trusted even while 'on leash.' Nor have I seen from you an ability to think, or learn. These are observations, not a slam.
I've observed these traits in a lot of theists-on hub pages, in other areas and in day-to-day life.
It's astonishing the depths of depravity shown by the question(s) by such as you. By all rights I should be very used to this by now, but I'm not. My optimistic side, I guess [shrug].
If the tenets of the Abrahamic superstitions actually applied to the adherents-there wouldn't be a sheeple anywhere on the planet. All would have justly, righteously, and lovingly stoned to death.
It is very possible-if it hadn't been for the institutionalized superstition industry-we could be roaming the stars by now.
The depths of your terminal invincible ignorance, and dishonesty are mind boggling.
I can't help but wonder 'who wipes your arse after you or ties your shoe-laces.' The lack of depth in your posts indicates, to me, you're incapable of doing those tasks on your own. Who is powering your iron lung, and why? I ask this question of very few people-as there are very few people who meet the hefty qualification criteria.
People such as you are to be pitied and kindly cared for. Sadly, many mental health facilities were closed by the 'Sainted Ronnie Raygun' and other 'compassionate Xians.'
Name the book? Are we really expected to believe that there is but one truth in this entire universe? Or, that we are so inherently evil that we must have an outside force define right and wrong in black and white print for us? Sounds pretty pessimistic to me.....
That is a lie. Science is a method of understanding, so it doesn't matter one way or another what type of world it attempts to understand.
Another lie. People can come to their own "codes" of living their lives, a concept completely foreign to the indoctrinated propagandist.
The most ancient spiritual text the Holy Veda means science.Science engulfed all knowledge material as well as spiritual but this with time has broken up.I do believe it is merging again with quantum physics.
Paarsurrey a human being irrespective of whether he believes in god or is an atheist can be good or bad.
An atheist is being honest when he or she says they dont belive in God and its just fine.When they go to the extreme step of going out of their way mocking those who do believe in god then they are not being civil.
On the other hand a lot of atrocities and war have been caused by believers.
My prophet or religions is greater than yours has and is the root cause of a lot of wars.
Mahavira "Live and let live" such ethical conduct is trampled upon by both believers as well as atheists.
Yes, but it is very difficult to "allow" when you reject your shadow yourself.
His aversion to other religions and atheism is the externalization of his own struggle to defeat his very own doubts.
You're right, atheism and science are two completely different things. I don't see what your point is though.
What do you get out of this paar? I mean obviously you get plenty of attention but I have to wonder if there isn't some larger goal? Do you just not have a hobby outside of trolling us atheists?
Anyway plenty of atheists have moral and civil codes, most of them strikingly similar to the morals of those around them. It's something I call collective societal morality, you learn your morals from your parents and those around you. Morality has evolved greatly over the centuries, from the barbaric morality of most religious texts based on coercion to more modern attempts at morality like those proposed by Sam Harris.
Perhaps you were trying to make a point about how disorderly atheists are since we believe such different things, you did mention how we aren't uniform. That's what happens when you get people who think freely and form original opinions rather than relying on dogma. That isn't to say there aren't groups of atheists who think alike (Secular Humanists for instance).
What moral and civil codes do atheists believe in? What is their source?
The source is the brain, do you not have one of those?
Haha. That is where true faith and true optimism come in to play. There need not be a specific source outside of the strength that comes from human abilities, such as contemplation, empathy, or the inherent desire to grow. No one book can provide as much guidance as we can find within ourselves.
The guideance we get from within ourselves is not different from the Word revealed:
[51:22] And also in your own selves. Will you not then see?
[51:23] And in heaven is your sustenance, and also that which you are promised.
[51:24] And by the Lord of the heaven and the earth, it is certainly the truth, even as it is true that you speak.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=21
When you figure out what science is get back to us. You are talking shit.
Had the atheists anything to do with science they would have at least formed some civil system in their life. They do not have any code for their life; so they are as many denominations as their numbers; no uniformity of thought or action in them.
As explained to you so many times before, it's called freedom and individuality.
It is what makes entrepreneurs and leaders with vision.
.....And there aren't numerous denominations and conflict in religion? A lack of uniformity? Ummm....
I think that the problem may be with looking at things as polarities: religion versus non-religion isn't really the way to find answers to the great questions in life. There is also a problem with the term 'God'. There have been many surveys done that show a huge portion of people who call themselves athiests do so because there is not a better word available to describe a unifying energy, a joined consciousness, or a shared frequency among all things. I believe in this and call it god but at times I think I would rather call myself an athiest as well because of the connotations.
It frightens me that you apparently need a religious code in order to live a moral life. I don't go around robbing banks or killing people because I know these things to be wrong, because I know they hurt people. Apparently the only reason you do not do these things is because you're afraid of a god punishing you. At least that's exactly what I hear when you claim without religion atheists cannot have a moral code.
P.S: Most scientists are atheists.
For some morals are in built others need to be taught as their way of life was destructive and selfish and they have no insight of their own.
I would call myself an atheist but the original post makes no sense to me at all.
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
The atheists do not have anything to do with science; they don’t have any system in them.They do not have any code for their life; so they are as many denominations as their numbers; no uniformity of thought or action in them.
Why do you just keep repeating statements that people have already argued to be false? It won't make them true.
I repeat: most scientists are atheists. The most famous and respected living scientist is Stephen Hawking, who is an ATHEIST.
But I think his point is, science is not defined by atheism. Science is a method of getting to facts (versus truths which is more dependent on perspective). True, many scientists are atheists. But they are not scientists because they're atheists. They are atheists because they are scientists and they tend to look at the world based on facts. The exercise on being prudent before proof presents itself consistently makes them averse to religious claims. Religion asserts answers, and science questions. The are poles apart and do not mix well, because it occurs in different parts of the brain. One is frontal/logical and the other is more medial/emotional.
G-d is not an intellectual experience, it is an archetypal experience (Jung said this) and so it does not belong to science in any way.
Atheism by definition is the belief that no G-d exists. You can be an artist and an atheist. You can be retarded and an atheist. It is an attitude towards a concept of G-d.
Science is a method of understanding and it is not about beliefs. You can believe in the big bang but unless you have quantitative proof, it is still theory. You can't believe in the big bang as a scientist because you feel it in your heart. It's happening in a different part of the brain.
You suspend belief in science until proof of an intelligent superbeing presents itself or is observed. If you're an atheist. you're set on an answer...it operates on belief. So atheism is not an intellectual exercise. It is largely psychological. Atheists usually have parental issues, most of the time when there is emotional neglect involved.
Many atheists are disillusioned by their parents who most often than not fail to honor the individual favoring a kind of tribal/religious external imposition of what is right.
Over-religiosity on the other hand usually involves people who just can't let the mommy/daddy figure go and so they commit their choices to those imposed by their church.
Science and atheism do not belong in the same area of thought.
Para's life view is so skewed, he cannot fathom other people's way of thinking and forming rational thought. Because he accepts indoctrination by religion, he thinks every other concept comes from the same place.
Science and atheism come from different places. Science came from the need of some people to know how the world works and when they kept on coming up empty with evidence for a god, many made the next logical conclusion - there is none. A person doesn't wake up one morning and become an atheist, its a process of discovery, or non discovery of a rational mind.
I was an atheist and then had a spiritual experience and became a poet or believer in god.
Logically speaking the Holy Vedas meaning science mentions the fact that god exists.Simple logic ,intelligent design = intelligent creator.
Creation requires a creator is logical. Its just happened is illogical,escaping reality.
All religions accept the fact of science; it is a part of every religion; yet atheists- the People of Doubt don't realize it.
Is that why Galileo was forced to recant his scientific sun-centered theory?
Also, I see that religions have not accepted the fact that I breathe on my own and wake up on my own---which is a scientific fact. Instead you would rather imagine that Goddunnit.
Do you just say anything that pops into your head? This statement...like most of your statements, is totally dishonest
Spirituality says its called prana or chi,the life force which we breath, science doesn't understand this at all.
Its this life force which keeps one alive .
Galileo was scientist who believed in God like many great scientists have.
Yeah Galileo believed in God. He had no choice, being that he was at the point of a sword.
Yep! Most other learned people were in the same boat. Easy to say you believe in a god when your life is threatened if you don't.
Its this how you want to satisfy yourself, by fooling yourself ?
“To me the works of nature and of God are miraculous.” Galileo
"Either you ca see the magic,
Or your life is indeed tragic" Mohit
Happy you can rhyme magic with tragic Mohit, but you are wrong about Galileo. He was coersed
I guess its something neither of us can be sure of. The point is scientists have been and are both atheists as well as theists.
Yet you are unable to understand the meaning of my words.
Trust me you are missing out of life. Its too magical .
In all likelyhood, you are the one fooling yourself.
People will say whatever they have to when threatened with death. Or do you deny that?
No I don't see the magic, and neither do you.
BTW, this is only your biased and grandiose opinion.
No one is threatening me or has gun on my head and is forcing me to say god exist nor has anyone forced me to dedicate 10 years of my life being a poet spreading knowledge of the Light or god.
Also I am not threatening anyone including you, I am against such threats.
In case you haven't noticed I defend atheist when they are attacked with threats ,telling them god exist within them as well and the only thing stopping themselves from god is themselves.No one ,nothing can stop you from going home to god,its what god wants .
You will understand with time, you are not ready right now.
"Day to dawn makes no sense,
What does we call non sense. "
I teach Chi lel Qigong, so I'm well acquainted with Energy. I was agnostic until I had my spiritual experiences.. I never could accept the teachings that I was subjected to in a fundamental upbringing.
Atheism is a psychic event that transpires when a person recognizes that his parental archetypes have failed him. When you find a personal archetype, a sort of personal empowerment, the atheism will be replaced by a concept of a god self. Then the atheism will no longer besiege you. One needs a luminous experience to overcome disillussionment. These are psychic events, atheism is but a stage of shedding the parent ego
You are correct! The luminous experience changes everything!
Cecelia...you have stated this extremely well. I also see some atheists propagating the teachings they were raised with, just as deists do. Far from being free thinkers, they wrap themselves in their own dogma, endlessly spouting the same type of vain preachings that their main adversary "Christians" do. I am always amazed at those who profess atheism, yet spend all their time arguing with people who are seeking spiritual answers to spiritual questions, and who aren't necessarily looking for debate. In this way, the proclaimed atheists of these pages, tend to be as annoying as bible thumpers knocking on my door at dinner time!
There is a difference though. Some of the atheists here only intend mockery based upon their belief that they have reached a new Nirvana of enlightenment and thus have risen above the childish beliefs of others. Yet when those of a religious persuasion mock the atheist in return, they are the first to get their knickers in a twist, and out trot all the old chestnuts of "religion causes wars.....religious people are judgmental...." and the prime case of pot calling the kettle black "religionists think they are better than everyone else" It's enough to make cat laugh.
Atheist- the people of doubt, surely do it.
Not at all. There is a class of words with an 'a' prefix which means 'without the following property.
Some examples are:
Atheism=without theos god(s), goddess(es) and the like.
Agnosticism=without knowledge (mostly used regarding the theism topic)
Theist scientists can do good science. Gregor Mendel (the father of genetics) is an example.
pasarsurrey -'they have no uniformity' is a criticism of atheists?
You are a facist.
@paar why you look so frustrated ?...are you ok?...calm down...it is ok...world is evolving towards lack of religion ...no need to get angered or frustrated...religion was never meant to be permanent thing...it was created by humans and as humans evolved , naturally their quest can never be satisfied by religion...
It is your wrong assumption; the atheists have never been in majority since inception; they are still a "tiny minority".
well who said common sense is common?...ofcourse atheist would always be in minority ...next era would be of agonist...religions would die since they are human made thing but atheism still would remain minority...majority would be agonist ...
logic...simple logic...but for that one must be open minded and study how religions evolved...if one views religions as divine , that shuts down unbiased analysis..religions too have evolved and what we see right now as major four are mere evolution of thoughts...but they are falling short of answers and they are bound to fall short because we can't expect ancestors living thousands of years ago to have answers which we need today...slowly religion would die down , which is good or worst new religion would enter the scene and present religions would get absorbed...but i can see agonist being flavor of future as science is getting more closer to basis quests...
And how do you think that the atheists agnostics skeptics whatever are open minded?
Is it not a sign of close mindedness to claim that "agonist being flavor of future as science is getting more closer to basis quests"?
Science is not a function of atheists agnostics skeptics; similarly logic is not a product of atheism agnosticism.
Science and Logic have evolved by all the human beings jointly. Atheism as one atheist mentioned here surfaced in the eighteenth century.
The term "atheism" surfaced in the eighteenth century. It is extremely unlikely that before that every single person who ever lived was a theist.
yes logic is not product of atheism or agnoist or religion ...it is human trait ..human phenomena...you are right in that
coming to Is it not a sign of close mindedness to claim that "agonist being flavor of future as science is getting more closer to basis quests"?
no it is not ... religion promotes close mindness and it take far more open mind to stand at position that religion is not divine and comes from humans...and then view the trend and make the claim..it is simple and doesnot take to be rocket scientist to predict the obvious...
It is an assumption of the People in Doubt- the atheists; one can neither prove it scientifically nor religiously.
The Atheists will remain a tiny minority as ever and Truthful Religion would be trimphant.
Yes a minority, but a growing minority as the ignorant by choice have another piece of their bronze aged lies exposed daily.
It is hard to keep people terrified of a non-being, they eventually see the myths as what they are with education.
With 2/3rds of the world still illiterate, semi literate and as ignorant as goat s*it, of course non-believers are a small minority!
Who do you think makes all the hate in the world? A handful of atheists?
Learning how to think again will return once you dump the god thing.
Which particular one of your fantasies are they hiding behind this time?
Reality, truth, facts, evidence all ignored and replaces with indoctrinated lies quoted from a psychotic book.
How in hell can someone like this sleep at night?
I just hope religion is ended once people get an education..
When people will learn their ignorance will be removed; they will know that the atheists agnostic skeptics are just people in doubt. They cannot prove that the Creator-God does not exist; just helpless they are.
They may accept the Truthful Religion; and the insignificant tiny minority will remain the same tiny minority as ever.
No, education will mean no more following man made psychotic entities.
Is it from science or from religion? Your source, please
Tiny minority will remain a tiny minority
The Creator-God Allah YHWH is Eternal , Immortal and Reality.
You cannot convince nonbelievers using words than only mean something to you.
You ask for a source?
You who have no other source than an indoctrinated psychotic position gained by being threatened by one book?
earnest, have you listened to Jung's interviews? people replace old beliefs with similar but distorted projections.
example... my moderator for Joseph Campbell was a former Jesus Christ fanatic. now he says he has awakened but talks about Joseph Campbell like he's Jesus Campbell. One jc for another JC. "Follow your bliss" instead of "love your enemies as yourself."
You can't reject your source, you have to embrace it but with keener understanding.
Yes I have, but like Jung, I don't think Jung was god.
Although through psychological concepts we at least have words such as projection to aid our understanding of "self".
Understanding self brings the possibility of change.
I feel that Jung would say that all post Jungians have the potential to know more than he did about the mind of man, which is the real source of all belief.
But like in the case of Karl Marx who believed in abolishing religion, the destruction of foundations shook the nations that touched communism and drove them into regression and poverty. It was only after China reintegrated its traditions into its culture that it "healed" from communism. It is actually no longer communist, but a hybrid.
Jung observed that you search all your life for this past and will project this need into other things, other mythologies...like say Aliens.
Making sense of your history in a way that you do not reject it but accept it as part of what makes you the person that you are provides more healing than invalidating an event of your life that you cannot change. That you were raised a believer is not in itself bad. Many people grow out of religious family cultures well adjusted and productive. Have you considered that it was perhaps that religion was used to control or manipulate that you find offensive but not really religion itself?
My husband does not bother to call himself an atheist. He also does not bother to go to church unless its a fun event for the family. He does not care for such things. He's just not interested.
But for someone to be invested in rejecting religion, religion stands for a personal shadow that you cannot shed light on and so you focus on the wall it is cast on.
Nice post. I do object to these projections being put on my children. I also object to the psychotic process it encompasses when being projected on any person.
Communism? No country has ever been truly communist in my view, but I do know what passed as communism was a fiasco as a system.
Religious belief (which let's face it, is laughable when read as "truth") would seem to be more tightly married to the response of the lizard brain to fear.
Jung also pointed out that individuation allows people to drop these projections and use them inwardly for their own growth which is where they belong. I see religion as a look at mankind's myths and archetypes.
It is not my wall to caste shadows on to. It is myth posing as rule and I refuse to allow it to go unchallenged for good moral reasons that I am fully conscious of.
I love my family, that is the bottom line excuse for challenging liars who would pluck away their lives and the lives of others if permitted to freely spread their messages of hate.
I suspect that your understanding of the personal myth is detached from the psyche. It remains external. Myths are internal psychic events. Jung was very clear about this. Mythology is the portrait of the psyche. It is the psyche portraying itself in the language it knows, the language of dreams. In its purest forms it can be translated to any thing that will be applicable to the individual's life. It portrays man's relationship to the greater aspect of nature that man belongs to. But it is not spelled out. We unfold it and spell it out for ourselves in the same way that we extract meaning from poetry.
"your slightest look will easily unclose me
though i have closed myself as fingers,
you open always petal by petal myself as Spring opens
(touching skilfully, mysteriously) her first rose"
The archetypes serve as patterns so that the ego can match itself there. Now the snake brain will use anything in its power to prevent you from changing. It does not want to let go of what it knows. The archetypal patterns that are encased in religious doctrine remain dormant in the psyche until the psyche can access its meaning. When the psyche uncovers a pattern, it unfolds it and transforms from within such that a heroic or at least an empowering will can transcend fear.
All religions originally aimed to free people of ritual and fear. But it spirals back to fear because fear is our template. We fear to preserve ourselves. Fearing religion is just transferring the object of fear. The reptilian brain will fear, and if you do not know how to penetrate the projections of the collective unconscious, it becomes another material for the primitive brain to keep you from letting go of your fear of death.
The only thing your children should fear is fear itself. That is cliche that holds no power to convince unless you fully understand it.
In everything there are gems for the psyche that you cannot recognize if you do not first see it within yourself.
Why to you quote posts without comment or reply? Just bumping your threads as part of your need for attention?
Absolutely. Reporting this troll does nothing either. It's funny when members here get banned for the most ridiculous reasons, yet a troll runs rampant over the forums and nothing is done about it. Blame the lack of consistent and reasonable moderation here.
What are you doing? You dont have any answers for spiritual questions yet you are on every thread.
What's your question, then? I'll give you an answer.
Perhaps his point is that these threads are basically attacks on atheism with the goal of harassment. Apparently HubStaff allow hate speech, duplicative threads and thread bumping so long as it is targeting athiests.
Who Mark? He lives here, he likes to change his name...but we all know who he is.
Spot on! I see you have learned quite a bit of Jung. You made your explanations very clearly, I wish I could do as well. Jung is a major project!
It was Campbell who actually explained this. I know Campbell more than Jung. So I am speaking from Campbell's understanding as well as my own.
Thank you for appreciating the post. But I agree, it is demanding to take the route of Jung, but it is worth it.
Campbell is a class act. The last book I read was "The power of myth" in 1992.
I thought he had a very open mind, not unlike Jung and was another who studied unusual cultures with great enthusiasm.
Wasn't he also a Catholic at one time?
Jung found the catholic trinity to be useful in explaining the process of individuation.
Campbell was raised Roman Catholic but was drawn to Native American culture and was surprised to find similarities in the theme of Creation Myths.
Jung sees the Trinity as patterns of archetypal relationships. But the trinity recurs too, believe it or not even in Judaism (Yahweh is apparently female in quality). And they're all in some way father mother son characters. the dove/mother also recurs as in the case of the feathered isis and so on.
The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Campbell would be a very interesting read for you.
In there you will see how these biblical stories connect to world mythology and actually follow patterns that Campbell asserts is actually the universal process of individuation. Finding one's "god-self", so to speak.
Religion should be embraced as a cultural phenomenon and studied. It emerged in our culture as part of our development. It is up to us to put them in proper context so that it will not interfere with our growth but rather become part of what makes us grow in our understanding of who we are.
We cast our own shadows.
Good useful post again, watch out it mat be habit forming!
I read "the hero with a thousand faces" about 30 years ago, I may even still have it.
you have? (then why...? nevermind)
okay the latest one is "Thou art That" (That is you) It was one of the last books he wrote before he died. It details generally what I've been trying to tell both camps.
That the problem is more universal and the only way to deal with it, is to deal with our own fears and embrace our own shadows as ours.
OK, and what is the "why? Never mind" about?
well doesn't that book pretty much explain that the story of Jesus is a story that is part of the Monomyth and is actually an archetype? Often times historical figures strike a chord in the consciousness and they become elevated to symbolize something universal.
So I thought you would have known that already and would understand why masses are drawn to the story even when they don't really understand why--having read that book.
by Mick Menous5 years ago
Let's face it. We ALL know that most atheists are paranoid of religions and that they're in-denial about it. They claim they're the more peaceful people in America when really they're no different from any average...
by Brittany Williams3 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by Julie McFarland4 years ago
I wrote a hub on how faith is not required in order to be an atheist. Someone requested that I turn it into a forum thread as well. My position is that atheism, by definition, is the lack of a belief in a...
by yoshi977 years ago
Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
No disrespect intended to any person.Is it true about the atheists agnostics skeptics?• There is no requirement of any minimum level of intelligence or any IQ level for becoming an atheist. All ignorant...
by Rishad I Habib7 years ago
Well like religion, i think atheism too varies from atheist to atheist..what is the standard form of atheism, its purpose and strengths over religions??
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.