Reviews for A Brief Study of Atheism
that one guy chapter 1 . 4/12/2013
"The early Christians were labeled atheists by non-Christians because of their disbelief in pagan gods."

Source: wiki/Atheism#Classical_antiquity
Lucy Labrador chapter 1 . 12/30/2011
Woohoo It all makes so much sense!
YFIQ chapter 1 . 12/22/2011
Interesting point, when that happens it shows how much terms have been changed overtime.
athousandpages chapter 1 . 7/30/2011
No, you are saying that you can conclude that there is no true atheist IF you follow that thinking. Who says that all of us or zombies, without any faith or belief?

But the thing I found most interesting about your story was the fact that, unlike most people, you do not try to redefine atheism. You try to redefine god.

I can't conclude anything, but it was... interesting.
BurnishTomatoes chapter 1 . 9/23/2009
But that isn't an atheist's definition of god, we may all have a faith but unless it rules or dictates us it is not a god. Plus, literally speaking, the bible holds no standing or relevance on anything, it isn't a dictionary, as I'm not some form of Christian, its definitions say nothing for me. But I suppose, if that is the case, I am a slave to my god of whatever I deem reasonable, or maybe, I am my own god, as I believe in myself.
fatbird33 chapter 1 . 6/3/2008
i agree! great stuff.
Rui chapter 1 . 3/22/2008
Firstly, you conception of atheism is wrong. I am a atheist myself and I don't think that what you say are right or accurate. Atheism means that I does not believe in super beings for example God. Atheism not believing in religion. The thing that I agree with you is that yes. I do not believe in what I can't perceive with my five senses or any other way. However, I do have my own beliefs and principles and anyway, what does Atheism got anything do with drug addiction, money, sex, power, hatred, or science?
CommandoDude chapter 1 . 3/7/2008
1. Atheism refers to the disbelief in god or belief in his non-existance. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. Faith in a god is different from faith in a scientific theory. One is untangible, the other is. Because of this faith in a theory has base in that it is a real concept that is there, god is an intangible object that one must put faith in soley because someone says he exists.

Thus. Your arguement is Null and Void for being incorrect and presumtious.
Scarlet Viper chapter 1 . 3/7/2008
Actually Atheist means "a person that believes that there is no God" and people can believe in things without believing in God. The term Atheist does not in any way imply that the person doesn't believe in anything.
Blood-Red White Rose chapter 1 . 2/19/2008
I agree with your final statement, however, you seem to have misunderstood the fundamental concept of atheism; the belief that there is no such _supernatural entity_ that could be called a god. This is not the same as being devoid of belief/faith.

You also failed to specify how you define a god since you seem to have a different definition from the conventional one. I do not see an obsession (eg. "drug addiction, money, sex, power, hatred, each other, or science") as the same thing as a god, except as a metaphorical description of the hold these addictions have on the individual subject to them. Therefore, this does not contradict the literal definition of atheism.

You used evolution as an example of something that cannot be proved and is taken on faith, when in fact as a scientific theory it has been tested against recorded evidence (eg. the antibiotic-resistant bacteria that get into the news occasionally).

(By the way, I have never heard the early Christians described as atheists - the Roman pantheon included a large number of gods adopted from conquered peoples - many of the best known originated from the Greeks (Jupiter-Zeus, Pluto-Hades, Venus-Aphrodite) - so it is unlikely that they objected to the Jesus cult on religious grounds, but rather on its political implications, ie. loss of religious control over an amount of the population).

An unorthodox position, but could benefit from additional clarification.
Petey 88 chapter 1 . 1/19/2008
Interesting take on religion.

Everything you say is true in my mind, how can people be an athiest or truly believe in the scientific world. We can not deffinetly say that evolution occured. Yet we need to take a look back. Why do people choose to be involved in athesism?

My personal belief is that its the same for all religions, humans feel a need to belong, humans need something that explains how we arrived at this point in time, we cannot say that the circle of life just keeps going.

Thankyou for exciting my thoughts

Le Creature chapter 1 . 1/14/2008
As tanasinn rightly points out, the primary flaw (despite many other smaller flaws that I won't mention) is this: "Everyone is, in a sense, a slave to a sin of some kind, and that sin becomes his or her god." Even if I accept the premise that "Everyone is a slave to a sin of some kind" (which I don't) if that sin becomes his or her "god" by your terms than your conception of "god" is without significant meaning. As a result, this isn't so much an essay as a heap of vague overgeneralizations.
JamezBfod chapter 1 . 1/14/2008
That's an odd definition of "atheist" you're using. My definition of an atheist is "someone who does not believe in any kind of supreme being". All this stuff about atheists believing in science as their god is irrelevant since 1)No atheist that I know of literally sees science as a god and 2)That's not what the definition of an atheist is. It's simply someone who doesn't believe in any kind of god. That's it.
Dead Skunk chapter 1 . 1/14/2008
You are more right than a reactionary.
feeder chapter 1 . 1/14/2008
"The bible says that one cannot serve two masters"

- And why is that something to base your argument on?

"Everyone is, in a sense, a slave to a sin of some kind, and that sin becomes his or her god."

- I've heard this argument many times, and the underlying flaw is that 'god' is never defined. What constitutes a god then, according to you?

"Atheists today are those whom consider themselves to trust only in what they can see and believe"

- No, they aren't. They are people who do not believe in gods. Nothing more.

"Evolution, comes easily to mind: no one can definitely prove it, as no one was there"

- Evolution is still happening. And we are here. However, in a sense you are correct - nothing can be proven absolutely, including evolution.

"Ultimately, what I am saying is that there is no one, not one, devoid of all faith or belief."

- Well sure, but so what? Atheists still exist, unless you're planning on dramatically changing the definition of the word. Perhaps you are making the mistake of equating atheism with a lack of religion or faith - in which case you are wrong.
16 | Page 1 2 Next »