Of it's self Atheism makes a simple statement, a rejection of the belief in deities. There is nothing else here, no philosophy of life, of conduct, no political insight and no philosophy of economics. There is no statement, as to moral conduct, decorum, social interaction. There is no indication of Rights and obligations of,both citizen and government.
Under Marxism and too, Communism, Atheism is embraced by government and, as the theism's force themselves on the people,as history demonstrates.Does such an Atheistic government pick up the mantle of a godly omnipotence, and if so, is there a difference?

Atheism rejects the belief in god/s, not god/s as no Atheist possesses universal intelligence and it would be foolish to make such a claim. The exercise of reason however,give proper indication that a god/s do not exist. That one would reject a god, may allude to the premise that there may be a god to reject. A side thought.

Tags: Atheism, Rights, and, obligations, philosophy, theism

Views: 1402

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

God is what the person imagined he will be but atheisim lowered him to real world not superpowerfull intity

Now here's a situation in which (capital) "He" and "Him" might not only be grammatically correct but also useful. I COULD just assume that "he" refers to "the person" and "Him" to "God", but unfortunately there are few other clues regarding how one might parse this sentence,

Also I believe that, strictly speaking, we should also capitalize "Intity".

@Mike Long:

Or...is it possible that Mohamed only capitalized the word in question because it came at the beginning of the sentence?

To avoid confusion I always write the word in the manner 'doG', just to avoid any confusion as to my intent or tacit approval of the concept.

This is right path. Atheism is truth.

Sadly my rational sense of honesty does not let me jump in with both feet without just a little twinge of 'well what if I missed something.'  While I am generally very comfortable with very strong provisional truths, making absolute statements as 'fact', seems to demand greater attention to details than I can muster at the moment. Don't get me wrong, I think 'atheism' is more likely a practical/reasonable position concerning the nature of reality, but I have found the most amazing things under flat rocks in my time.....;p)  

Well its one of the world's philosophies that takes a look at fundamentalist beliefs that could be responsible for the promotion of infringing the rights of others, unprovoked violence and sometimes brainwashing. 

Please note, I am speaking about extremists here, which is the root of the problem. There are a great number of rational theists who are very liberally minded and have no ill intents towards any other person. 

For the record deism does the very same thing as atheists; regales of us not viewing the "God Issue" in the same light. Some atheists aren't comfortable with knowing that. But deists were the first rational infidels. We don't like organised religious extremism anymore than atheists do. 

One might as well ask what is the value of truth to humanity.  Without objective standards for determining the truth anything can be justified.

Especially when even the concept of truth is subject to the individual's acceptance of it. Truth must necessarily be separated from fact.

I am not sure what you mean.  If something isn't a fact, then it is not the truth.

In one if the Indiana Jones movies when Dr. Jones was teaching a class he said that Archeology is the search for facts.  If you want to find truth then Dr. (cant remember name) philosophy class is down the hall.  

Truth is subjective, Facts are objective.  At least I think thats how it works.

I don't think so.  Truth is objective when the word is being used properly.

Asking what value Atheism has for humanity is the wrong question. In a sense it's like saying what value does not smoking tobacco have for humanity?  What value does not doing crack cocaine have for humanity?  What value does not drinking beer have for humanity?  I as a non smoker/drinker don't have to defend my choice to not smoke or drink beer.  Why should we have to defend our choice to not have superstitions?  Those who chose to follow the majority may think us weird but they are the ones who chose to actively follow superstitions and as such their actions are the ones that need justification.  


Blog Posts

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 3 Comments

Forever Cursed

Posted by Nerdy Keith on February 25, 2015 at 8:00pm 4 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service