@Mb_Man Everybody's got one, just like assholes.

@TheMiddleWay No 'butt-hurt' this way from me, however it, the quotation, is somewhat incorrect since in reality Atheism holds, for the major part, to NO philosophy what-so-ever.

@TheMiddleWay I'm sorry you see it as an issue of "butt hurt" rather than the fact that atheism is one simple thing (a lack of belief in gawds) and NOT a philosophy or system of belief.

@TheMiddleWay The philosophy ( Theosophy as I choose to call it btw) to which Theism holds is that a Supreme Being/Entity MUST exist since it is written in a book and since any philosophy or theosophy is merely a supposition/presumption UNTIL evidence, unfalsifiable can be exihibited it remains just that.
But, having said that, there are numerous and varied disciplines in the world/s of Philosophical thinking. and NONE of them either involves nor comes remotely close enough to classified as being 'Atheistic Philosophy/Philosophies.'

@TheMiddleWay Well, Science and Scientists theorise then search out tangible and empirical Evidence to support or disprove their Theory, ergo they do NOT philosophy.
For example, here is a Philosophical comment of my own, " He who elects to travel the road of life by taking only the path down the middle often knows very little about the whole journey."

@TheMiddleWay Theism is one simple thing - belief in a gawd or gawds. However, being Catholic or Muslim is a whole lot more complicated, but still not a philosophy - they are religions. ... (Why do folks insist on trying to turn one simple idea (atheism) into a philosophy or some other complicated mess.)

@Mb_Man
to be pedantic it is the love of knowledge from the Greek Philo = love and Sophia = wisdom

@Mb_Man In some ways it can be described as that in simple terms BUT it is a SEARCH for understanding of what is, what was and what can be.

@Mb_Man Philosophy is not knowledge, but the principles of such.

Thank you. You said it far better than I did because no one seems to understand what I've said, lol.

@TheMiddleWay What has this to do with atheism? There is no "truth of atheism" ... it's simply a belief - or lack thereof, more exactly.

That is why I wear my hair long.

A fundamental misunderstanding, we do not have horns, but our lack of religious inhibitions mean we often get the horn

@LenHazell53 Nice thought.

Pilgrimage is a human practice started JUST to see if the grass was greener..... Christians and others have ridden on the back of that with delusional endpoints

I suspect that's just a personal opinion that has no historical support. Sheldrake explains it in detail.

I believe it was the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who first speculated that the rise of atheism would cause a rise in consumerism as people struggled to fill the void left in their life by loss of faith.
As it turned out most of the most ardent capitalist where religious people trying to cash in on this expected windfall.

EDIT
Correction it was Reinhold Niebuhr, expanding on ideas presented by Bonhoeffer

@brentan Of course that statement has no historical evidence but the world was completely populated surely by people trying to get to a better place or just curiosity,. This site is all about personal opinion and one can always surmise, can one not?

Was with you until the last sentence . You went from the definition of a word or thought process , to an opinion that simply doesn't hold water . Atheism is logical , it is the assorted religions that are illogical . For one thing , if a religion actually made sense there would be only one of them , the correct one . There would not be centuries of wars over which of them was or wasn't the real one .

"Atheism is illogical."

In what way? Explain this statement.

@Cast1es Religion can be viewed as logical as well. It works well in controlling the masses. I believe the first religions were based on innocence, but group leaders quickly recognized the value in 'worship' and used it to their advantages.

On the contrary. Theism is illogical. It is illogical to believe in something that there is absolutely no evidence for and cannot be proved.

@Word
-ism. a suffix appearing in words derived from Greek, where it was used to "form action nouns from verbs"
You are using it in a more modern form where it is used to form nouns from words of proto germanic (or indo european) origin that use the Greek suffix -ist to denote a person who practices or is concerned with something usually in a derogatory sense eg racist, sexist etc.
Since Theist from Theo (God) and hence Atheist is a pure Greek word predating the modern convention it is still beholden to rules of classical grammar, therefore your using it in the proto germanic fashion is pure equivocation, thus rendering your contention invalid.
(EDITED FOR SPELLING)

Why do you say it is illogical?

@Cast1es You type your responce as if "Atheism" is opposed to religion not as if the word construction gives for being opposed to theism. Why would you say atheism is opposed to religion?

The oldest defination of Religion that I am aware of comes from the Guinness world record holding for being most copied text of it's kind. AND, the text has been peer reviewed for 1000's of years. Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27

@Mcflewster @Sgt_Spanky

And, to further explain atheism in terms of theism. Theism is an assertion that God thingies do exist, atheism is an assertion that God thingies do NOT exist. With most common definations of theism/atheism stating " ...God or gods..." this allows for different types of God thingies.

I exist. God is not my name. The fact that I exist makes atheism incorrect or illogical.

NO, I am not pasta in the sky with meatballs. I am not required to fit your definition of a God thingie in order to be a God thingie that really exist. Attached is a photo that is a NON-Biblical reference that people are accepted as be types of God thingies.

(i realized i am on wrong computer to upload picture, once I get to other computer source I will edit and add picture)

@AstralSmoke Religion and government are rather synonymous. Government possibly coming from origins of meaning MIND control.

@LenHazell53 How do you avoid equivocation?
The easiest way to avoid this is simply to define your terms at the beginning, which is a good technique anyway! If you clearly define all the terms in the early stages, then you can be sure that you are on the same terms as your reader. [literaryterms.net]

If there is a question of word usage and the word usage of equivocation is not intentional and cleared up by both writer and reader then it seems it would not be true equivocation.

something else I thought interesting from the above cited website: One of the most common forms of equivocation in literature is the speech of oracles. In classic Greek tragedies, in was very common for an oracle to deliver seemingly good news to a main character – but by the end of the story, the true meaning of that news would be revealed, to tragic consequences.

@Word Can't wait. Whatever you do you will get further by showing evidence. Why are you using two types of computer?

@Mcflewster Right now on an office computer, my picture is on my cell phone. Otherwise, i will just copy and paste here. Daniel Boone and Kit Carson are real people recognized as deity.

deity noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
de·​i·​ty | \ ˈdē-ə-tē , ˈdā- \
plural deities
Definition of deity
1a: the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY
bcapitalized : GOD sense 1, SUPREME BEING
2: a god (see GOD entry 1 sense 2) or goddess
the deities of ancient Greece
3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
such established American deities as Daniel Boone, Kit Carson
— J. D. Hart
the deities of the banking world

@Word WORDS , WORDS ,WORDS , WORDS ,WORDS , WORDS ,WORDS , WORDS ,
Where would we be without them - pity they can be mis-interpreted.

@Word Attachment?

@Mcflewster The copied defination of Deity is what I had a picture of. Normally i send the copy of the screen shot of the defination of deity. this time I did a copy and paste.

@Mcflewster here is something I have copied from a different post, i will use it here so I don't have to type so much.

The criteria for a God is well established. Interested in you response to this:

How atheism is illogical. Any true student of biblical text and one that studies and knows what is written as to what Jesus character style of god said knows this much and those purporting to be Christian supposingly supportive what Jesus character said:

3 different references that people are Gods. With out disputing truth or fiction of Jesus character, it is written that Jesus style God argued that people are Gods.
Isaiah 41:23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.
Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Although it is impossible to obtain exact figures, there is little doubt that the Bible is the world's best-selling and most widely distributed book. A survey by the Bible Society concluded that around 2.5 billion copies were printed between 1815 and 1975, but more recent estimates put the number at more than 5 billion. From: [guinnessworldrecords.com]

The biblical text is record holding most copied book of it's kind. Biblical text has been peer reviewed for 1000s of years. It has critics but overwhelming acceptance that supports Jesus's statement that people are Gods.

Gods exist because people are accepted to be gods, atheism illogical.

It is not necessary or required to prove any other style of God, only one style of God is required to prove atheism illogical.

Willy wanka style god, Harry Potter style God, Zues style God, Medusa style God: what ever, none of these are required to be proven to show and prove atheism illogical. Atheism by basic definition is that NO God(s) exist. Proof and acceptance of just 1 style god proves atheism wrong or illogical.

@Mcflewster As to a Jesus character style God. As written biblically, Jesus Character referred to himself as "son of man". Then Jesus character refered to the people from the old testiment as the gods. The biblical text also has written that Jesus Character was born because of pnuema (greek), ruach (hebrew) translated into english as spirit. What this is saying is that Jesus Character style god was spoken into existence by the people gods and their speaking from what was said in old testiment. The people gods created jesus style god.

@Word You may be interested to know that I found on cheap sale in a charity shop a very thick book called The God Man. You can ask me about it but I have not read it just glimpsed it through. I am going to keep it as I suspect it is the sort of thing that you are talking about . Do you want photo of the cover page? ( I am NOT going to send you the whole book this way - sorry)

@Word I'm thinking religion came first.

@AstralSmoke I would say, in some cases, what you call religion and what government is considered would be synonymous AND in some cases coinsided or developed with each other.

I am not claiming I am an expert, but some where I recall hearing or learning about some ancient civilizations that had and formed types of government but there was nothing that had to do with any sort of religion.

@Word I'm trying to imagine what it was like living 100,000 years ago. It would be very easy and understandable to give deity status to lightning and thunder for example. Why do we as humans desire to be controlled?

@AstralSmoke i do not think all people like being controlled, some like controlling others especially to their benefit. Some like types of control that a society government can give. It can give a sense of security for those that can approve or submit to the controlling "authority".

@Word Perhaps perceived security is the reason. I'm not totally convinced though.

Prostitution is a Moralist..?

@Varn No, she does not say that.

@Moravian ...not sure if ‘she’s’ still around, but she may have considered commas

@Varn She died in 1940 and was no great loss to anyone other than a few Anarchists who more or less deified her

@Varn she lived in different times when most wives were supported financially by their husbands so I THINK she meant they are not that different from prostitutes.

@Moravian you are right, but the quote actually comes from a 1910 piece titled "The Traffic in Women" condemning the sex trafficking of women finally being legislated against not because it was in itself immoral but because the sex slaves were not married to their owners and so were not legitimised by holy writ and sanction.
She was right of course, but this was a case where the twisted means were justified by the end result, or at least partial result as sex trafficking over a century later is still a thriving industry.

Not in my opinion.

To call Non belief in the supernatural a philosophy would be like calling off, a TV channel.