@Saud Societies change over time. Cults change over time. Languages change over time. I see no point in worrying about any of that.

There is no bijective mapping between pure mathematics and the world around you.

As the bard Bob Dylan himself said, " Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters"...

@Saud Are you thinking of the Langlands bridge?

@Saud There is no point in worrying what could happen hundreds of years from now.
We'll all be long dead.

If you're that worried about the future, plant a tree. It's one of the only positive acts that anyone can do today.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

@Saud Yes, I read what Dawkins writes and I sometimes listen to his speeches. I have no trouble at all in challenging him about some of his ideas, this specifically including the "Dawkins scale" , which scale I regard as being over-simplistic.

Have you not heard of the cathedrals of CERN, LIGO and JWST?

@Saud Science is data, and data is evidence that can be examined and repeated.

@Saud I envy you! Enjoy it.

@Saud Imo, IF o9ne NEEDS to read books regard Atheism, etc, to merely seek a kind of "confirmation" as to their status then, also IMO, they are wasting their brain cells by NOT actual thinking and deciding for themselves in the first place.

Dawkins is an outstanding author with many subtle stories and insights into the details of evolution. Similarly, Hitchens provides exceptional historical and social analysis. If you haven't read any of their books, it's more likely that you aren't inclined to read books. Similarly, I'm betting that you do indeed avoid non-religious groups, but that's your own behavior of avoiding socializing. Socializing performs the functions of putting yourself out there and opening up your views to criticism and challenge. That's not a risk-free activity. Not having done it means you have no basis to say what it's like, or who those people are. Whatever criticism you have appears to be imaginary. That you make such criticism without basis suggests you may need counseling for psychological issues.

@Saud I am non-religious because I can and do think for myself. You are sensing the atmosphere that always obtains whenever any group of like-minded people come together.

@racocn8 You are right on the money here, again. He's either spent so much time alone that he is out of touch with the community or he is a believer in sheep's clothing. It's like he is trying to dissuade nonbelievers from organizing, misrepresenting atheism as having leaders and failing to acknowledge that atheism can't be a religion because there is no subject of worship. I get so tired of these infiltrators.

@Saud The only thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe in God. Atheism has no leaders. Atheism can not by definition be a religion.

Every premise upon which you base your question is faulty which is exactly how believers pose questions about atheism, out of ignorance and disdain. I smell a rat.

@Saud Thank you. I hope you've received some reassurance about your concern. We get such a hard time here from religious people and even conservative atheists that I suppose I have become a bit jaded. I concede that my assessments are not always accurate and if I have been unduly harsh with you, I apologize. Please consider yourself welcomed to this forum, I hope you will find some enjoyment from it.

@Saud No worries, everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. Just be yourself, that's the most important part. This forum is somewhat unique in that most of us are older so each of us has something different to contribute. We don't always agree but usually we can disagree respectfully. It doesn't work for everyone but it might for you.

@Saud FYI, I was an Atheist LONG,LONG BEFORE books regarding it were even written by those of whom you are thinking.
Imo, MOST people DO NOT need a book or books to decide for them as whether or not they are Believers or Atheists, that decision is made by them in the minds using their OWN brains and logic, etc, etc.

@Saud 20 years hey, just a newbie imo, been an Atheist since I was about 8 or 9 years old.

@Saud Funny that since I remember discussing and debating LONG before the Internet was even dreamed of.

@Triphid Same. I've been arguing and debating all my life.

@Saud So, and I may be thinking the wrong way here, but I sense that you are somehow implying that since I am of an age older than yours then my knowledge, etc, etc, is far less and extensive than is yours?
Jeez Louise, are you aware of how absolutely dismissive and arrogant that may well sound by any chance?

@Saud So, and this is my opinion btw, your disbelief in God/Allah grew mainly from merely borrowing the ideas etc, of others that you read about rather than doing as many of we, the older class of Atheists did by enquiring, learning and actually THINKING for ourselves SANS such aids as computers, etc, etc.
I.e.in much the same way as did Da Vinci, Galileo, Pasteur, Curie, etc, etc, dis because they too had NO electronic devices to act as their thinking brains, just the REAL living brain itself?

If there is money to be made out of it then someone will try. I won't be a part of it.

@Saud It is a nonsense question, as it fails semantic analysis. It is as meaningless as the statement "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.".

@Saud The question is still a nonsense as it seeks to mix two incompatible realms: mathematics and knowledge of reality.

Have you encountered Karl Popper's idea of falsifiability?

@Saud I read Karl Popper's book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" many years ago. His reasoning is that science makes progress when theories and hypotheses are demonstrated as being false. If a claim is incapable of being demonstrated as being false, then the claim is unfalsifiable, and as such it is not scientific. Perhaps the most famous case of a falsifiable claim is Newton's Laws of Motion. While those laws were repeatedly tested and confirmed by observation, they were ultimately falsified by the Michel-Morley experiment which then led to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

There is also the widespread misconception that anything is science can ever be proved. Putting it bluntly, there is no such thing as proof in science (though there is proof in mathematics, printing and liquor - think of 120% proof whiskey). All science ever has in that regard is a collection of ideas and equations that amount to the best description of reality as we know it at the time. The ideas that match repeatable observations eventually become theories (in the scientific sense - see the Theory of General Relativity by way of example) but many people mistake the vernacular theory meaning guess or hunch as meaning the same thing as a scientific theory. Perhaps the most famous (or notorious, depending on your point of view) example of this is Christina Wilkinson of Oswaldtwistle who claimed “Evolution is not a fact. That’s why it’s called a theory! There’s more evidence that the Bible is true.”

It is worthwhile observing that all claims of all gods are unfalsifiable, because none of those claims can be demonstrated as being false.

@Saud Um, I did not say science didn’t make progress until Einstein improved on Newton. Proving that things do not work is an essential part of science - think of phlogiston in that context.

@Saud Sleep well.