@JohnnyQB As an agnostic I would say If one does not necessarily believe in an alternative then this is a belief

@granny My dear Granny, a more suitable designation would be hypocritical trolls .

Excuse me? I am an atheist. I do not BELIEVE any gods exist. I do not KNOW whether or not a being, or beings, that we would call a god or gods, exist. Maybe one does, or some do...it simply cannot be known. However, I see no reason to believe that any do.

Uh oh.. Now he's gonna block you! Eek and oh nooo

@Cutiebeauty Goodness gracious me!

@Sgt_Spanky well Sargent, if needed, you can give him a spanky spank

@TheMiddleWay Theists are claiming the existence of something for which there is no evidence, I'm claiming the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence. Not the same at all. One is a reasonable conclusion based on logic, the other is just wishful thinking.

@TheMiddleWay Let me explain something that should've been clear already. There is no evidence for something that doesn't exist. That's the proof it doesn't exist. If it did, there would be some evidence to support it. No evidence of any kind means it doesn't exist.

There is no evidence of any kind whatsoever for gods. Their non-existence is proven.

Most atheists I know will not claim to "know" there is no god, or are no gods--it is about belief.
An atheist simply does not hold the belief that any gods exist.

Sure, some claim to "know" there are no gods, but most don't. It is something that cannot be "known" or proved, or disproved."

I find that some people who identify as agnostic, think that a person saying they are an atheist is making a claim of knowledge when it is about belief.

I am an atheist because I hold NO belief that any god--of any kind--exists.
I am also an agnostic because I recognize that it simply cannot be known.

As I have stated in other posts, I think it is possible to disprove specific gods (such as the god of the bible).

@Archeus_Lore. I agree.These are the same narrow minded atheists that drool over the Epicurean Paradox which is based on a god invented by man as you so intelligently stated.There are an infinite amount of possibilities other than this that these nitwits have the audacity not even to consider .

@Joanne really, really well put.

@Joanne How does that differ from the christians, who say they have "faith" that god exists? "Faith" and "belief" . . . how does that differ? The christians are quick the tangentialize the minute you start asking them to "prove it", that is, prove what they assert. Atheists are on the exact same footing, because they make statements the same way christians do, and back it up with nothing, just like the christians do, and the word itself, "Atheist", breaks down to "no god", or "not a believer in god", while the christians use the word "christian" to mean followers of christ, i.e. those who believe in and have faith in christ. There are a lot of similarities there.

@Archeus_Lore No! The definition of atheist is simply one who LACKS BELIEF in any gods. It is NOT a claim of knowledge or any kind of profession of faith.

If an atheist claims to "KNOW" there is no god they are wrong in doing so--it simply cannot be known. Just as a believer cannot claim to "know" there is a god. It is a matter of belief, or non belief.

I am an atheist because I see NO REASON to believe that any gods exist. It isn't that I "believe" none exist--I lack the belief that any do. There is a difference.

Science shows us that there is no need to insert a god when explaining the workings of the universe--so, why insert one?

The simplest explanation is that energy has always existed. Energy becomes matter, matter becomes energy. No intelligence, intent, will/volition is required. If one makes this energy a god (a being or consciousness with intent/will/volition it complicates things). And, as I said there is no reason to do this.

To play the devil's advocate, (pun intended) one could argue that all matter is energy, our brains are energy in that sense, and, the universe itself is energy, and it so happens that our brains are the most complex thing known in the universe next to the universe itself . . . . and, on top of that, physicists base what they know about the universe on what they can observe of the universe, which is indeed, only a very small fragment of what really exists. There is no more reason not to do it, as there is reason to do it. Nonetheless, it does not take the Atheists out of the commonality they have with the christians.

What a cute reply

snark.

@FrankA I agree .This Mofo has a nasty habit of insulting agnostics .I would say he has some mental health issues .It is so absurd that this imbecile would insult agnostics on an agnostic site just for voicing their opinions

@Mofo1953 Get lost you annoying IMBECILE !

@FrankA wow, very lame comeback dude, infantile and childish, but mostly lame.

@FrankA, @richiegtt brilliant deduction dude, are you going to cry now?

@FrankA, @richiegtt, @tiredofthis1 oh sure, who could resist such an original invitation? But the answer is no.

Well, the site promotes itself as being for agnostics, atheists, skeptics... It is not just for those who identify as agnostic.

@FrankA wow watta zinger. Your comments bother me so much I can't take them anymore, please stop or I'll die laughing!

@FrankA LOL!

@FrankA I agree, there are atheist on this site, just as everywhere, who can be assholes; but I have to say, I have come across some assholes who identify as agnostic as well.

I should add, I have no problem calling someone out if they are being an asshole...I just ask that we who identify as atheists aren't all lumped into that category.

I'd greatly appreciate you taking a short bit of time to correct what you term his "historical misconceptions" While realizing his takes on the 3 Abrahamic religions requires vetting, I do find them intriguing, and wonder if there is at least partial truth to them? I want to learn, not argue.

@Rossy92 Well, okay. Since it's you.

Christianity was not "invented by the Roman empire to quell the rising Jewish rebellion". Christianity began as an apocalyptic Jewish cult among many such cults. The Romans actually persecuted Christians for 3 centuries, until, in 313, Constantine legalized all religions. He finally converted to Christianity himself, and it eventually became the de facto religion of the Roman Empire. The later church was certainly Romanized, but it can hardly be called a Roman invention.

As for Islam; today, we would very likely consider Muhammad mentally ill. After all, he was a 40-something merchant with a habit of going off into a cave to meditate, where he believed he started talking to the archangel Gabriel, who delivered him the revelation that the practices of polytheism were wrong, and there was only one God and His name was God. Not unlike Jesus (if Jesus actually existed), he slowly gathered disciples around him; but since his was a message of conquest rather than turning the other cheek, long story short, he did not end up being crucified. The notion that Muhammad was trying to emulate the Catholic Church (which he may not even have known of; he would have been in contact with the Byzantine Empire) and was simply in it for the money is very cynical. He may well have been schizophrenic, but he probably wasn't a con man. There are easier ways to get rich than starting your own religion and taking over a quarter of the known world.

@Paul4747 Thanks. Very interesting. Is there much evidence that Constantine's conversion to Christianity was more an opportunistic ploy, rather than a more sincere belief? Confusingly I've seen it written, both, that he converted in 312, and that he converted on his deathbed in 337?

Concerning Muhammad, is it not true that the Koran takes many cues, some say it's plagiarized, from both Judaism and Christianity? If not him specifically, is it not plausible that those who might have aided him in the development of the religion, and especially after his passing, might have taken cues from the Catholic Church?

@Rossy92 Constantine converted at about 40, but was only baptized on his deathbed, under the impression that this gave him a free pass from anything he had done in his life. He mistook deathbed confessional and last rites for deathbed baptism, evidently.

It's absolutely true that the Quran plaigarizes a lot from both earlier books, but, Muhammad being illiterate, it's hard to say if he did this intentionally. At best, I think, he was repeating stories he remembered hearing over the course of his life. Again, as I say, he was quite probably schizophrenic to a high degree, as well as very charismatic. The nearest modern comparisons we can turn to would be people like Jim Jones or David Koresh, who accumulated large followings.

Of course, the Quran was assembled after Muhammad's death from the sayings his followers "remembered", fragments written down during his lifetime, and oral histories, so it's debatable how much was his words at all... although it is probably more accurate in that respect than the NT. (The amazing bit is how God reveals things to illiterate tribesmen all alone in Middle Eastern caves, rather than just appearing to everyone all at once and settling things.)

@Paul4747 Exactly. A message ostensibly of such great importance to mankind. Give me a f*cking break. Thanks again.

@Rossy92 You bet.