ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Top Ten things you need to know about Atheist vs Religion Forums

Updated on August 26, 2012

Well the title is a bit deceiving. This is a rebuttal to another hub page. The author won’t be named. But because of this hub page it has occurred to me that many theists come to Hubpages not ever having met an atheist and not having been to a religion vs atheism forum. The author of this list writes that both atheists and the forums came as a real surprise.

“I had heard of the concept (atheism) but, to be honest, I believed it to be a bit of a myth. I’d toyed with the idea, but knew I was just a kid that would eventually have to grow up and face the facts. I always pictured the average atheist as a communist peasant, throwing his cigarette onto the polished marble floors of the palace once the Czar had been deposed. Non belief in God’s existence. Unfathomable.”

Is it true that there are places in the US where you can live your entire life without knowing atheists? Being a Canadian that comes as a real shock to me. It’s almost unfathomable.

They go on to write:

“As crazy as it sounds, I considered the ultimate purpose of science was to find the answers as to how God created all things. I assumed the scientists understood this to be their mission. If rumour on Hub Pages has it right, then it appears scientists are sincere when they declare their disbelief. I am still processing this huge discovery.”

True it is. But historically science has always taken the stance that god is irrelevant. As the author of the above says, for many scientist science was the way to find out how god did it. Many scientists were theists until the middle of the last century. So the idea that god did it, whatever it was, has always been irrelevant. It tells you nothing about what is actually going on or how it all works. Nothing has changed. The idea of god is still irrelevant to science. Only now most scientists, particularly the physicists, are atheists. You don’t have to be an atheist to be a physicist. But it helps if you are not a young earth creationist. You tend to make a mess of things, as is evidenced by that mockery of science and probably religion as well, the Creation Museum. It’s in Texas I believe. Come to think of it, it’s probably a mockery of museums as well.

As crazy as it sounds, when I was a kid I thought that there was only one religion seeing as there was but one god, that the world was run by a single government that was dedicated to the betterment of all people around the world, and that advertizing was a public service announcement telling us all about new miracle breakthroughs in laundry soap. Seriously I did. I was shocked to the core when at 6 I discovered none of what I believed was true. Oh well. It has to happen to all of us.

“So, having found that atheism is, indeed, a fact I found myself confronted head on with the philosophy. Trial by fire, the first few weeks it seemed to me to be. A more aggressive mind set I had never encountered outside of my own. I have found it at times to be disconcerting, haughty, predatory in its disdain for all things spiritual and sundry other things I should not share (due to the fact that I believe we need to maintain a minimum standard of courtesy in our Hubs).”

All things an atheist would say about theists if they had never been to a religion vs atheism forum. I guess that’s what really needs to be discussed here. The forums. I’ll make my comments on that basis.

So now to the list. This is what the author of it says about it’s creation:

“ This list exists solely because one of them (an aggressive atheist) asked me to name a few reasons I found the thought of atheism so distasteful.”

“Tenets of the Aggressive Atheist Faith”

One of the ten things that drive atheists mad. Calling atheism a faith. I don’t know how much time I devote in forums correcting theists who say atheism is a faith. It seems theists are unable to fathom a way of living without some sort of faith. But I won’t go over it all again here. I’ve written about it in other hubs. So let’s begin:

1: “All theists are delusional.” Theists hate this phrase almost as much as atheists hate the phrase “Atheist faith”. It really is just as big of an insult to them. They do not seem to understand that the atheist by nature finds the idea of a god, and in particular the Christian god, a delusion of the mind. Dawkins called it a viral idea: A meme. I’m not sure I absolutely agree with his entire theory. But the gist of it is that Christianity is full of traps which keep the individual infected, such as hell, that faith is good, that god punishes for lack of belief in him, and that to just think of the none existence of god is dangerous. Believers that dare to try thinking of a world without god are constantly being drawn back into belief by guilt and fear. The bible even tells us that the wise who do not believe in god are the stupidest of them all, and that to be wise isn’t even a good thing to begin with.

Another feature of the Christian meme is its mandate to spread the disease. The Catholic missionaries used to tell the native heathens that their god was just, and if you have never heard of him your soul is judged only on your deeds. But once you have heard the word, there is no excuse and if you do not believe, you go to hell. I say, yeah. Thanks a lot for telling us... no not really. Hearing the word is to be infected, in other words.

There is also a comfort in it that is hard to resist. Particularly for those who are depressed or in trouble. There is a great reward for “right” thinking. You will be given eternal life in the end, so all the suffering you do here and now is irrelevant. It’s all a test. You will see your departed loved ones again someday. This punishment for wrong thinking and reward for correct thinking is a powerful incentive to believe.

If you have never been a believer from birth, you have some immunity to these ideas. Your parents have probably spoken out against religion so it is your tradition not to believe. But as a former Catholic and theist, I know full well the power of the Christian concept. It is exactly like a virus and could be likened to an addiction as well. Even when you want to be free of it, it draws you back from all angles at once. But once you have achieved non-belief it is liberating, exactly like being cured. But I can see how it would be a rather insulting idea if you were a believer, even though it’s true.

The reason I don’t completely agree with Dawkins is that it seems to me that these packet concepts or memes, are the normal way we communicate, and can be found everywhere in different forms. But I’ll leave that explanation for perhaps another discussion.

Do atheists really think theists are delusional? Yes we do. In the same way, theists think that atheists are delusional. Any theist who denies this is not being true to their faith. Why give up everlasting life or risk hell? We are here to save you, they say. The inquisitions that took place from the late 300s to 1966 in various forms and intensities worked on this one premise. Better to be tortured into believing, here on earth while there is time, than face eternal damnation. They were doing people a favour.

A theist can of course be a rational logical person in all ways but this one. So to say all theists are delusional is a default position only applying to their theology, not necessarily every other aspect of the person’s thinking. But why does theism seem delusional to an atheist? Because it cannot be shown to be true. A person claiming that there really is a god, is not making a statement of fact. They are giving a speculative opinion and selling it as fact. That is as much as the definition of a lie. But theists don’t see it that way. To them, they are doing you a big favour by telling you about the true and only god. If you do not know you are lying, is it still a lie?

To me it is a misunderstanding of your position and of the facts, not a lie. So to believe in speculation as a fact is by definition a delusion. But to a theist, it is faith. And faith is just the best thing ever! But again, faith, to an atheist is delusion by definition.

So that is the problem. Both parties come to the question from entirely different perspectives. And both think the other side is delusional for taking their stance. Can’t be helped. Let’s be honest about it. The entire reason for the list was to show how delusional atheists are.

2: “An aggressive atheist is always right.” This is, of course, the pot calling the kettle black. Did I just give away my age? Never mind. The point is that it is the nature of debate that one take a strong position and defend it until such time they themselves become convinced it is wrong. Human nature and ego on both sides of any issue make being wrong unthinkable. After all, people have usually come to their opinions through long and hard deliberation with themselves, and do not want to lose what they thought they knew. We after all, in reality know so little with certainty. While the theist complains about the atheist’s aggressive stance the atheist complains about the theist’s aggressive stance. There are idiots on both sides of the issue, but other members of the team, no matter which side, will usually rally to defend even the most consummate idiot on their side. Would that we all just argued with reason and logic, and left our egos at home. But that isn’t the way mobs work, and this type of debate often becomes a mob mentality very quickly.

I could do a hub on the nature of religious/atheist forums. Too many people are shocked to see what others think of them. For example, according to theists, atheists cannot be moral as they have no basis for judging it. Christians often say they wouldn’t work with an atheist or knowingly associate with one. Theists treat atheists like second class citizens, refusing them jobs in certain places and even firing them if they confess to atheism in others. I’ve heard people in the US say they wouldn’t vote for an atheist for president. We are going to hell. We cannot live a happy fulfilled life. All of it is nonsense, of course.

On the other hand atheists accuse theists of being delusional and irrational. True, but if I were constantly told how irrational I am I’d get miffed too. Little actual debate happens, and it often becomes a flame-fest. The trick is to grow a thick skin and know why you are there. For the theist it is to defend theism and make atheists see the light. For atheists it is to tell theists they are living in fantasy land. If you are there to test your faith, it will be tested. But these forums are not for everyone. Some people just shouldn’t participate in them.

Here on Hubpages they are tame compared to forums I have been on. One in particular has no moderator and no rules. It is a real trial by fire for anyone’s ideas. But these forums are not set up for rational debate in a formal manner. Don’t expect that they are, and listen rather to the ideas that come forward, and consider those. Above all, never take anything personally.

3: “I am a god.” Christians think atheists believe they are god. I hear it all the time. It’s a little absurd to believe that. Some Pagans believe that. Mormons believe they will be eventually. Many people in to new age religions believe that. But atheists don’t. They may rely on their own ability to reason to make moral judgements, but that doesn’t make us think we are god.

4: “An inability to understand compassion.” It isn’t that atheists have an inability to understand compassion or someone’s appeal to religion on those grounds. The theist asks: What comfort is there in a world with no god? What do they tell the sick and dying? That it’s just too bad? That there is no after life, so suck it up?

To an atheist death is usually accepted as inevitable and the end. No one gets out of here alive. To us it is better to accept the probable truth rather than tell ourselves stories about a speculative after life. Should we wake up dead we will have to deal with it. But no, we aren’t so cruel as to bring up death or the finality of it to dying cancer patients. If they are religious then now is not the time for philosophy debates. We will get them a priest or whatever their religion demands or they desire. If they are atheists then they have likely made peace with the fact that it is going to soon be over. In Canada there are many health care professionals who are atheist and deal with terminal patients every day in a very caring and professional manner. The patient’s religion is not put in to question. Theists have an unrealistic idea of the life of an atheist. It’s much more mundane and normal than they seem to imagine.

5: “The need to make up your own spelling of words.” Funny this should be on the list because I swear that on specific forums for Christian vs atheist debates, one of the major comments from atheists is: Does being theist preclude you from using a spell checker? It seems that so many people these days just don’t take the time to check their spelling. I used to be caught on that constantly when I was younger and finally decided to correct the error of my ways. No it is not that atheists or theists have a hard time using a spell checker, it is that people in general are becoming sloppy about it due to texting, as well as other factors. There is nothing like having a few regulars rubbing it in to make people think twice though. If people only realized that there is nothing that can hurt your ability to pass on your ideas more than the distraction of bad spelling.

6: “A very long nose.” Meaning something to look down at theists from. The atheist would say that religion looks down on us with such a nose and has done so for centuries. So now it is the atheist turn. We have rationality and logic on our side so we know we are a few up on you. But again, both parties are guilty of the same thing. No use denying it.

7: “The need to make up names of imaginary gods.” Well there is a good reason for that. What the author means, of course, is that we mention other gods like Zeus and ask if they believe in them. If not, why not? Or we say belief in their god is like belief in invisible pink squirrels. Neither can be proven to exist and no one can prove they don’t. To the theist this seems odd. Those other gods don’t make sense. They are not real and not relevant. But what the Christians fails to see is that to the believer’s in Zeus, he was as real and as relevant as they think theirs is.

Mankind has created over 4000 different gods, not including at least 8 thousand Hindu manifestations of god, all with their own names and their own stories. To the atheist, if all those gods are imaginary even to theists, why is theirs any different? And of course it is not. That theists do not take kindly to that being pointed out is not the atheist’s fault. Out of 12 thousand gods we just believe in one less than they do. We really are just wondering why they still believe in that one.

Historically religions run their course in 2 to 4 thousand years. Every believer has believed as hard as today’s theist does. Each has seen their idea of a god fall away into obscurity. It won’t be any different for this god or this religion. It is already happening. Christianity is in decline worldwide. There are an estimated 200,000,000 atheists now and the number is growing. I’d say that is a very conservative estimate. North and South America, not including Canada, are the last bastions of hard Christianity. Most of Europe is over 25 percent atheist. Canada was at 16 percent. But in a pole done this year, the percentage of teenagers believing there is a god fell from 56 percent 10 years ago to just over 35 percent. 31 percent have no opinion. I believe the CIA official estimate for atheists is just over 2 percent of the US. But I highly doubt that figure is accurate. It is more like 10 to 12 percent from other sources.

8: “Distortion of facts. There appear to be no rules in the advancement of aggressive atheism.” As there are no rules in theist aggression. We atheist learned to be aggressive through talking to theists. All it takes is a few debates with a Calvinist or a Born Again Christian to see what aggression is all about. Fundamentalists are the main target of the atheist who takes on debates in forums. We get hardened in battle, so to speak. And as I said in another Hub, the moderate theist and atheist who have a live and let live attitude are collateral damage in these discussions. It’s a pity.

A theist may admit that there were some things done in the name of god that were not right. Some wars started and such, but they will usually (and rightly) say that most of the wars were really political, and used religion as an excuse. But then they will say all atheist governments have been dictatorships and have killed millions. Of course that is a gross distortion of the facts. There has never been an atheist government. There have been communist governments who viewed religion as a threat to their rule, but atheism is not communism. To blame the atrocities of communist governments on atheism is to be wilfully ignorant of the facts.

So again, both sides do the same thing for the same reasons, and are very aggressive about their stand in an open debate. You can’t blame one side and not the other.

9: “Inability to laugh at much.” Not so. But when they are having fun being aggressive with theists it may seem that way.

10 “There is no God. Even though this is, as it has been presented to me, the bottom line atheist belief, I don’t think I would ever want to have to repeat myself quite so much as an aggressive atheist feels the need. Perhaps it is necessary to maintain the mindset.”

This from a theist. Why do we have to constantly say there is no god? Because theists constantly say there is. They threaten us with it, they warn us about it, they tell us it loves us and died for us, even though it is still alive according to them. The bible tells them specifically to go out and spread the word. And we have heard it all our lives and it really is not news anymore after two thousand years. But they keep pushing it on us as if it is the first time we heard about it. And then they ask us why we say there is no god so often.

To maintain our mindset? No. To counter theirs. Because that is what the discussion is about.

The point of all this is that both parties can be and are annoying to the other, and for the same reasons. The open debate forum is not a structured debate between two or more people. They are perhaps the last place in the world where no one has to be PC. The un-moderated versions even more so. Both parties tend to flame each other and throw whatever verbal barbs they can at each other, and from time to time someone makes a good point.

It’s like the wrestling ring of the philosophy world. A lot of theatrics and very few gems. But there are some gems occasionally, and they are a good place to learn how to spar. So for some of us they are worth participating in. Something to be said for being dragged into the mud once in a while too. Exfoliation, I think it’s called.

The religious forums are not for everyone. No shame in taking a pass on them. But if you do participate, grow a thick skin, and learn to take nothing personally. And for Zeus sake, use a spell checker. Nothing worse than looking like an idiot right after you’ve been called one.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • profile image


      7 years ago

      Of course, one leads to the next one, and the next. And what if the bad guys are color blind and unable to recognize the security level code. Laughter is good for the particular lungs overall because it offers an aerobic workout for your diaphragm. " funny questions to ask a girl along these lines are extremely simple and supposed simply to help get your foot in the door. Find out for more info also here

    • profile image

      Kathryn L Hill 

      8 years ago

      Fighting the atheists in forums.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      8 years ago from Ottawa

      Done in what way?

    • Kathryn L Hill profile image

      Kathryn L Hill 

      8 years ago from LA

      Thank you for your input. I'm about done now.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      8 years ago from Ottawa

      Exactly like my experience with theists on these forums. The trouble is, on the whole theists try to argue science without knowing the first thing about it, while atheists tend to know theism rather well.

      But there are trolls on both sides.

      Scientism isn't a bad word, by the way. It's probably going to eventually replace religion as a general mindset.

    • AuroraJoy profile image


      8 years ago from Ireland

      My experience looking at those forums is that militant anti-theists dominate, using ad hominems, red herrings, straw men and a myriad of other fallacies and vitriol against even the most liberal theists/Christians. Scientism, rather than science proper is the hallmark of the village atheist.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 years ago from Ottawa


      Thank you. I'm sure we can have good discussions as time goes by.

      I did write this for people new to religious vs atheist forums. Few people know what they are letting themselves in for.

      I'm glad you want to follow me too. ;) I've started following you as well and look forward to reading your hubs. ;)

    • profile image


      10 years ago

      Slarty, this hub is brilliant! It is a clear, concise, and absolutely passionless statement of the atheist position, with nary an insulting statement or condescending attitude to be seen (or perceived even). ;) You are the kind of person with whom I would truly enjoy a "discussion" about religion. I wish, though, that I'd read this hub PRIOR to venturing into the forums. Awesome, seriously. So glad I signed on to follow you. Can't wait to read more of the hubs, and have the time to go through some of the comments.

    • qwark profile image


      10 years ago


      Yep! :-)


    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 years ago from Ottawa

      Sorry it took a while to respond. But I see you have become an optimist after all. ;)

      Yes if we can keep a handle on genetic engineering and nanotech and who knows what's to come, yes, we may well evolve into a super species. But before we get there I suspect a lot of times ahead that we will be standing on the brink of new discovery or extinction.

      As you say, who knows what we will evolve into? We have only been human for a few hundred thousand years. What the hell will we be in a few hundred million, should we get there? It's mind boggling. And a billion! It's unfathomable.

    • qwark profile image


      10 years ago

      Hi Slarty:

      Life has about 2 billion yrs to go on this planet.

      Just to start ya on this study.

      Humankind will suffer more great catastrophes before it evolves into a viable life form.

      There is no doubt that we are but a prototype human creature.

      It may take us another 2-3 hundred thousand yrs or more to become a "successful" species of life.

      There are unimagined ways man could find to improve his lot and insure his survival.

      We'll never know what they are, but if man succeeds, there is no limit to his evolutionary abilities and possibilities.


    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 years ago from Ottawa

      Well I am not sure where you get the idea that the world will get that hot. Perhaps if you explain that to me I'll have a better idea of what you are saying.

      I agree that man kind will have to leave the planet if we intend to survive the long haul. We will continue to evolve naturally and we will be having a hand in that evolution with genetics and bionics, and nanotec.

      We may want to live in the sea or on planets with much higher or lower gravity. We may want to genetically alter ourselves to do that. There is the danger,though, of altering our genes in a destructive way and wiping vast amounts of us out.

      I think just the fact that we live longer will spur us on. And I think mining in space will become a big business and bring with it a lot of new technology that will be useful for eventually leaving the planet. But there is no ship big enough and not nearly the resources we need to build a ship or enough ships to get everyone off the planet in the short term or for the foreseeable future.

      In a billion years we may have already built a Dyson ring around the planet and only work and vacation on earth. If it is still habitable. Or on or around Mars if earth is no good anymore and we terra-form it. We can house all of us in such a ring. But we would have to have a world government of some kind for that to work.

      We may not recognize what lives on this planet as human beings by then. Who knows what evolution will bring?

      Speculating about a billion years from now is fun, and there are a lot of good Sci Fi books in it for someone. But I'm sure I can't possibly guess what it will really be like if we survive as a species that long. I do imagine it will stranger than I can presently imagine. lol...

    • qwark profile image


      10 years ago

      Hi Slarty:

      ...and I like you too...:-)

      Oh I've never intimated that mankind or the earth would be destroyed.

      The "catastrophe" I predict will reduce the human population.

      Of course the earth will last until the sun evaporates it or Andromeda will collide with the Milkyway.

      Of course all extant life has suffered catastrophe, but this is the first time in the life of man that he has the ability and the intent to adversely effect all existant life.

      The earth, over the next one to one half billion yrs will heat up to the point that no life will survive. Within two to 3 billion yrs the surface of our planet will become so hot that all water will have evaporated and in but a short time, geologically speaking, the soil will melt and boil.

      Human life, if it survives, can only last for about another billion yrs or so. Man will have to have prepared himself for a life travelling in space for many generations. He cannot possibly be the "man-of-today."

      I am predicting a catastrophe that will, most likely regress and mutate man, on the surface of the planet, to that of stone-age man.

      There will be those "greater" men who will have fled to the safety of underground life who will reappear, when the time is right, to again begin the processes of regeneration and progress.

      Evolution will, again, be profoundly involved in the creation of, possibly, another species of human being.

      Hopefully, this "new man" will have learned from the past and come together in concert to synergistically form a new gov't that has the survival of the human species as it's goal.

      What do you envision that opposes my prediction?


    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 years ago from Ottawa

      I can guarantee catastrophe. It's part of life and evolution. But we've been around for at least one hundred thousand years as humans and at least a couple billion on our way to get here. Unless something wipes out the planet like an asteroid, destroying all life, there will be humans who will survive.

      In the 1970s I would have said the nuke was coming. It was just a matter of when. Maybe it still is, but it won't likely be all out nuke war. Some will survive. I see oil running out before we have good alternatives and collapsing the world economy. Millions would likely die. But some will survive.

      I'm a realist. So I expect there will a lot of catastrophic events in our future. And eventually the sun will eat our planet and wipe out everything. It's inevitable. Some will have to move in 5 to 20 billion years from now. By then we should be able to.

      But short term I see noting that will wipe out the planet or mankind completely. So I am guardedly optimistic that we will get through what ever we do to ourselves or what ever nature does to us. We always have.

      As for me, I know no one gets out alive. I'm fine with that. So it's not a matter of individual survival that I am optimistic about, it is the species survival.

    • qwark profile image


      10 years ago

      Hi Slarty:


      I know I'm a "pessimist." I've asked so many in the forum to offer optimism backed up with facts/truths that might change my mind, with "absolutely" no convincing results.

      I'm open for the change if ya think ya can overcome the massive amount of info I have gleaned from life upon which I base my pessimism.

      I "predict" catastrophe within the next 50 yrs. I know I'm being redundant. I can see it no other way.

      Can you?


    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 years ago from Ottawa

      I like you, Quark. But you are such a pessimist. ;) To me it's not what could or is likely to happen, it is what will happen. And no one knows that with any certainty. I'm a guarded optimist.

    • qwark profile image


      10 years ago

      G'mornin' Slarty:

      Language is also evolving.

      Currently, there are 500,000+ words in the English language.

      I've been living close to 70 yrs and have confidently finished over 6 yrs of college depending upon the definitions several worn out dictionaries have provided me. :-) (no brag, just truth)

      The online dictionary I use now has the word "ignostic" available and since becoming an "ignostic" many yrs ago, the dictionaries I used, included that word. If a dictionary doesn't include the word "syzygy," I won't use it.

      Anyway, hey, plant the seed!

      I think it's the wrong "season" in the evolution of we primitive men to think that any wonderful, judisciously thought and offered plan of action will engender movement in the direction of our survival.

      We are much too fragmented a species to be able to come together, in concert to accomplish anything that will save a species which is well on its way to catastrophe.

      Thanks for the response.


    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 years ago from Ottawa

      "I am a speaker of English. All English dictionaries define "Atheism" as a disbelief or denial in the existence of god/s."

      yup. I know what you mean. But the problem with modern dictionaries is that while they give definitions of "common" usage, they are slow to catch up to current usage. Common usage can also be Christian usage considering there are a lot more Christians and the person who wrote the definition probably was one. They are also slow to pick up current philosophy. Your case in point, most still do not include ignostic as a word. Perspectivism is a word coined by Friedrich Nietzsche and it isn't in most dictionaries either. It isn't even in spell checkers. Atheism is from the Greek A to mean without, and theos to mean god. The ism means belief. That means without, or lack of, a belief in gods.

      The dictionary is not always the best place to get good definitions of words.

      "The problem you will have attaining that "goal," is that 90% of world population will never be reached."

      Well it's really not so much a goal as a seed. But in 1990 there were a few hundred people who identified with Rational Pantheism. Now there are thousands all over the world. These things grow with a life of their own.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 years ago from Ottawa


      Thank you.

    • lorddraven2000 profile image

      Sam Little 

      10 years ago from Wheelwright KY

      Very insightful. I avoid any debates over the topic of religion in most cases.

    • qwark profile image


      10 years ago

      I respect your response Slarty:

      " I lack the belief that they exist. There is big difference." "They" being god/s.

      I was born American in America and was educated in America.

      I am a speaker of English. All English dictionaries define "Atheism" as a disbelief or denial in the existence of god/s.

      Based upon this English definition, I, respectfully, can't consider any facet of your response that refers to this "god" concept...except as it being related to anything but imagination.

      " Religion is dogmatic and never intends to change. Where as there is never a last word in science, and everything is always on the table waiting for new evidence." I love that "truth!"

      "We want to foster a love of life and an awe and wonder of the totality of existence." Idealism for sure, but a very desirous goal!

      The problem you will have attaining that "goal," is that 90% of world population will never be reached.

      Thanks for the thoughtfully expressed response Slarty :-)



    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 years ago from Ottawa


      Thanks for you comments. They are always welcome. ;)

      I understand what you mean completely. I am an atheist but I don't deny the existence of gods. I lack the belief that they exist. There is big difference. If you deny that they exist you are saying you hold a belief that they do not exist. Such a belief is as speculative as a theists belief. But to lack belief is not speculation.

      In the same way, Bigfoot may or may not exist. But I lack any belief that it does. I don't deny it exists because there is no way to know. So I don't hold a belief about it either way. Rather I lack the belief that it does exist.

      There is a saying: lack of belief is not belief of lack.

      So in that way I am an atheist. But I am also an ignostic, because unless an idea is falsifiable it is not worth entertaining until new evidence arises to make it falsifiable. So the question of god is meaningless unless the god is defined, and falsifiable.

      I am also a materialist in that to my knowledge there is but one substance, energy/matter, and it is what all things are composed of. There is no outside force or god required for the world to be as it is.

      I am also a Rational or Scientific Pantheist, a world view that I helped develop in the 1990s. It is a materialist view that uses the findings of science as it's source of information about the world. It tries to promote the development of the rational and logical mind, by utilizing the scientific method as guide for our thought process. But at the same time it addresses some of the aspects of community that have been thus far the purview of religion. We want to foster a love of life and an awe and wonder of the totality of existence.

      In other words, create an atheist version of religion as it should evolve. After all, for all it's faults, religions function has been like that of science, an attempt to explain the world. The difference is that previous religions were guessing. We now have science, and the scientific method that tells us the opposite of what religion tells us. Religion is dogmatic and never intends to change. Where as there is never a last word in science, and everything is always on the table waiting for new evidence.

      So you can be many things at the same time. They are not all mutually exclusive. Philosophy is full of titles to learn about and try on. Each represents but one aspect of a persons thoughts and opinions, and they are all somewhat modifiable.

      To me the thing is to never invest faith in any of them.

      Just remember that to believe a fact is redundant, and to believe a speculative idea is delusional. From there we can't go wrong.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 years ago from Ottawa


      I spent almost seven years going to the same forum every day arguing with theists. I've heard it all. It was unmoderated when the moderator was there, but he hasn't been heard of in at least three years.

      Let me tell you, it get's very frank and at times very ugly. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

    • qwark profile image


      10 years ago

      Hi Slarty:

      Atheists deny the existence of god/s.

      For many of my younger years, I presumed I was an atheist.

      It wasn't until years later that I was enlightened.

      If god/s cannot be defined in a form other than opinion, if god/s cannot be known, if god/s are incorporeal and exist as naught but imagined, supernatural entities, what is there to deny? Nothing but an abstract concept!

      "Atheists" are non existent.

      When I am asked anything about god, I ask god? what is "it?" The response will be an "opinion." My response will be: "Until you can define "it" in other than opinion for me, I can't respond meaningfully."

      I am an "ignostic."

      I must ignore the question as being engendered by self imposed ignorance.

      Well written "hub" Slarty.


    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 

      10 years ago from SE MA

      Many years ago, I spent time in the alt.atheism newsgroup. Unmoderated, uncensored, we said what we felt.

      Honestly, it wasn't a lot different than it is here. We had some really loony theists (they'd have to be loony to invade alt.atheism) and a lot of very vocal atheists.

      Fun times :)


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)