WHile checking into a hospital for surgery awhile back , the woman fill in in my check in sheet , asked what religion . I told her I was an atheist , Next question - smoke ? No Drink ? No . Drugs ? No . Then she looked at me and asked , " What do you use as a crutch ? With a brief hesitation , I answered , "I stand on my own two feet .

I do find it interesting how much energy Atheists spend on shit talking a imaginary God. Rather then say simply ignore the imaginary and focus on the result. While refuting the existence of God is rational the way people refute is seems often very irrational. Especially the idea that all religious people are the same. Look at it in relation to a child's imaginary friend which is often a result of a real stress or influence/event in the child's life. While not real the "friend" serves a real purpose and has real measurable results quite often beneficial. Sometimes not. But the way to resolve the issues is not through attacking the idea of the imaginary rather it is finding why the need for the imaginary exists and finding a more reason based rational way to deal with the core issue. Instead many Atheist, many adults, they find satisfaction in being "right" rather then being beneficial or effective in making things better.

I think Jacques Derrida and the Deconstructionists (agreed, great band name), are completely full of shit.

Atheists do not "need" anything to justify anything. If man hadn't invented gods and religion, atheists wouldn't have anything to NOT believe in. If there were no theists, atheism wouldn't need to exist.
We're all born not believing in gods and religion. That garbage has to be taught.

However, I will concede that anti-theists (like myself) would have nothing to be against if religion didn't exist.
Jacques can have that one.

Gtfo with that nonsense. There is no need for religion, period. It is a concept that has and continues to cause far more problems than it ever solved. It is a nonsensical, cowardly and ridiculous way to address the problems of life.

Without theism you couldn't have atheism.I hate the word and would rather be called a realist.

Do we need unicorns to justify the position that they don't exist?

Only in the sense that we'd be called people, instead of atheists, if religion didn't exist.

Well of course we do, there is no lable for not believing something that no one believes. But it's a meaninglessness statement. It's like saying, " If there was no religion, there wouldn't be religious people." Well duh shit...

Perhaps people who do not believe in the purple and white polka-dotted, winged elephant flying around the planet Saturn with a unicorn stuffed up its ass need those who do believe in it to exist to justify their position. Impeccable logic.

You don't need a justification that you don't believe something. You only need to know what is in your own head. If the idea has never occurred to anyone, then yes, it is dependent upon someone suggesting the idea first before you can consider if you believe it or not. But that's not a "justification". At best, it's a prompt.

I was never religious, so no.

Does a Non-Stamp Collector need stamps to justify their position?

I'm a non-glorpist. I have no belief in glorp. Glorp doesn't NEED to exist to justify my stance.

I reckon it's an absurd notion.

The existence of religious people have no bearing whatsoever on any position I take on anything.

This sounds like the brain-child of the kind of theists who can't grasp the fact that atheism is not a religion.

True, Atheists exist because religions do. We would much rather just exist without having to identify as such, but because they exist we have to exist.

Maybe Jacques should start a band, because that statement is really stupid.

So if atheists don’t believe in whatever they don’t believe in, why do they need to engage in the argument because they are arguing about something that doesn’t exist. Ergo, no argument. At the end of the day, if we are honest, no one really gives a shit what anyone else thinks unless it impacts upon their lives. Just sayin’ and opening up discussion.

why do i have to justify my "position" to anyone? i don't have a position. i just happen to be aware that there are no gods. so if no one else believed in any gods, there still wouldn't be any. what i know has nothing to do with what someone else believes.

g

Lol I wish I didn't have to be an atheist, if that's your idea. There wouldn't be any debate on whats real or rational. Everyone would just acknowledge reality for what it is, and have a lot less reason to fight or disagree.

Don't reckon.

I think the Western world had to go through religion to get to atheism. Derrida wanted to tear down the old to bring in the new. I don't think he was in a position to fully understand what he was promoting. We can see it better now with cultural Marxism attempting to do all the things he wrote about.

I don't know if atheism needs to justify its stance by the evil acts of religion over the centuries. Perhaps the good aspects of religion over the centuries would work against that justification.

Um... what exactly would that position be? I don’t really have one to justify.

I would just hit Jacques over the head with a semantic.

You found a steamy pile of dung .
Put a flower in it..
PS : to find missing particles-
science had to plan for the REALITY
of their existence!!!

To say that someone has to believe in something that doesn’t exist to justify my not believing in it, is just...wrong