Is it true that All that atheists are, are people who have been looking for scientific evidence on why they should give up on life?

"Scientific evidence" has nothing to do with atheism (nor does logic) - if anything, it's more of an anathema to atheism than anything else.

I think that atheism exists for the same reasons that rape, murder, child molestation, furries, and other social diseases exist - if we got rid of those, we'd probably get rid of atheism in the process as well, so maybe we'd better get started.
 
Last edited:
A. ) This is why you should be agnostic and admit you have no fucking clue.

B. ) They're illogical because Atheism is a religion. They are taking a stance based on faith and treating it as if it were True & Honest. There is no proof God doesn't exist (and probably never will be, because proving a negative is basically impossible).

However, this also means their belief system is built on something they must take on faith, same as any other religion.
 
As an atheist I believe people shouldn't waste time praying 5 times a day and putting all their responsibilities on God while believing in fantasies.

I believe People should be a productive part of society pulling their own weight while retaining their morals and culture.

The people you're talking about are liberals and drug addicts.
 
Last edited:
Neither Atheism, nor stout Theism make much sense to me, I’ve always stuck as Agnostic.

Now to explain why I said the first part, Atheism is a contradiction in itself. You can’t give veritable proof to me more evidence that a Higher Power/God exists, than someone could give me evidence on a Higher Power/God not existing. Agnosticism on the other hand is true, I do not know of a Higher Powers existence/nonexistence.

Agnostics have always gotten insulted upon the primary basis that they’re sitting on the fence, or cowardly. Atheism is insulted upon using it as a way to force the others to prove their side.
i.e, “Prove that God exists, I’ve seen no proof, so you show me yours.”
vs
“Prove that God doesn’t exist Athiest, you can’t!”

They seem similar, but both are just hiding behind a ad ingorantiam, so I don’t like either absolute.

To answer your question though, seeing as your first comment dictates your inherent side/belief.
Atheist I’ve met aren’t using it to make their “lives meaningless.”
Their belief that
EVERYTHING U EVER DID WAS POINTLESS,
Isn‘t a cause to their Atheism, nor is it a bad thing to say necessarily, because their meaning/intention is everything you do for a better afterlife is pointless.
This is just due to their belief of no Higher Power, not an actual opinion about general life.

As well
THEREFORE WE NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO DO EVERYTHING!
I‘ve never seen an Atheist use the lack of Higher Powers for this reasoning, or even seen one do that.



In the end, I don’t know & that’s all I know.
The fact that I know I don't know is why being Agnostic makes sense to me.
Same argument that Theists use, same argument that Atheist use, though worded to suit their position.
 
You assume way too much when you say atheists "search" for anything. You'd have a hard time finding an atheist that read through the whole Bible, let alone studied it in detail. Same way with science, which unlike religion that has a foundational belief, is an ever changing process that is hard to keep up with. So it's ironic when an atheist claims how religion is a rewrite because science settled everything.
 
You assume way too much when you say atheists "search" for anything. You'd have a hard time finding an atheist that read through the whole Bible, let alone studied it in detail. Same way with science, which unlike religion that has a foundational belief, is an ever changing process that is hard to keep up with. So it's ironic when an atheist claims how religion is a rewrite because science settled everything.
I've heard atheists say they're better read on religion than religious people, but in my experience, it doesn't tend to go beyond the stuff you could find on wikipedia.

Wikipedia can give you some vague generalizations but you can't truly understand a religion until you've been around its followers and stuff like that.
 
I've heard atheists say they're better read on religion than religious people, but in my experience, it doesn't tend to go beyond the stuff you could find on wikipedia.
This is definitely true in some cases, though it’s subjective to personal experience.
I will agree the ones I’ve seen that are obviously lying about saying they know the Theism they’re arguing against usually come out the gate with:

> But did you know what it said in, “page 23, verse 32, what about this bad thing in chp. 32 verse 9…”

& Once you dive past their initial 2-3 points, you’ll notice their knowledge isn’t even surface level in depth on the entirety of the book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dustlord
This is definitely true in some cases, though it’s subjective to personal experience.
I will agree the ones I’ve seen that are obviously lying about saying they know the Theism they’re arguing against usually come out the gate with:

> But did you know what it said in, “page 23, verse 32, what about this bad thing in chp. 32 verse 9…”

& Once you dive past their initial 2-3 points, you’ll notice their knowledge isn’t even surface level in depth on the entirety of the book.
True, there are religious scholars who happen to be atheists and have a lot of knowledge about the major world religions. There are even ex-priests and stuff that have a lot of knowledge of their former religion.
But I think you'd be hard pressed to find those people spending a significant amount of time arguing with random religious people online. The type of person who would claim to be better read on a religion simply for being an atheist.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: johnsinslot
Back