This depends on the definition of atheism that one uses.The definition that is in common use today is “atheist is someone who does not believe in gods”, whereas “nontheist is anyone who does not have a specific belief in a god or deity.” (Nontheism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)By this definition, atheists=nontheist and thus all atheist are nontheist.The definition that some theists would love to use is “godless people without morality”. This definition was more prominent in the past and therefore:The term "nontheism" was first used by G. J. Holyoake in 1852,.He used it because of the bad associations with the term atheism."Mr. [Charles] Southwell has taken an objection to the term Atheism. We are glad he has. We have disused it a long time [...]. We disuse it, because Atheist is a worn-out word. Both the ancients and the moderns have understood by it one without God, and also without morality. Thus the term connotes more than any well-informed and earnest person accepting it ever included in it; that is, the word carries with it associations of immorality, which have been repudiated by the Atheist as seriously as by the Christian. Non-theism is a term less open to the same misunderstanding, as it implies the simple non-acceptance of the Theist's explanation of the origin and government of the world."Those of is who live in the secular world simply do not accept the idea that atheists are immoral and therefore do not need to invent new labels for it(*).Those who do live in the theist-dominated areas are forced to invent different labels in order to avoid stigmatisation. Somewhat similar to the way some gypsies prefer to be called “Sinti and Roma” in Europe or the dark-skinned people in the USA were called “black”, “colored”, “negro” and finally “african American” over time.from Negro - Wikipedia:Negro superseded colored as the most polite word for African Americans at a time when black was considered more offensive.Wre it not for the stigmatisation, we would still use the words such as “black” and “gipsy” and nobody would care.(*) generalisations are stupid, but there is far more evidence for theists acting grossly against own morality than of the atheist being any worse in this respect.
Theists: Don't you understand why we Atheists mock your religion?
"we just wish you would not project your moral view on the rest of us. I know you don't think you do that, but you do." You've made an assertion. I disagree with this. Let's be scientific and test this out. What is my moral view that you believe I'm projecting onto so many people? As for your original question, I know some aspects of why some people do - or at least what they've given as their motivations. You mentioned 'irrational beliefs and contradictions' earlier, does that contribute to your mocking? I'm confused though. One of the pro-atheist tropes we see frequently in R&S is that the only thing they have in common is a lack of belief in deity. But here you are asking theists to comment on other aspects of atheists' mindsets as if they were uniform. Surely not all atheists share a common motivation. Not all participate in mocking. And once you leave the alcohol and smoke-filled hallows of R&S, very few do. Do you disagree with that?
Why do theists always think that atheists are taking away freedom of religion?
There are politicians, spiritual leaders, and media voices in the US who have an interest in fanning the flames of anger between theists and atheists. This has nothing to do with protecting our freedom of religion, or freedom FROM religion, it has to do with getting votes and support, getting a bigger audience, self-aggrandizement, etc. If you want to lead people, if you want them to listen to you and send you money and vote for you, the easiest way is to convince them that their rights are being taken away or ignored in some way, and you are going to help them fight to get them back. In this case we have conservative politicians wanting to co-opt the fundamentalist movement so as to capture the Southern states, the Bible Belt. They warn that atheists want to take away Christians' freedom to practice their own religion. Gay marriage is part of it, as is any move to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance or 'In God We Trust' off our coins, to banish the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court, etc. They insist (VERY wrongly) that our founding fathers didn't really want a separation of church and state, that they wanted fundamentalists to have special rights and privileges to enforce their version of morality on the rest of us. Since schools don't teach -their- version of religion they insist the govt. has an agenda to teach our kids a 'secular' religion. On the other side you have atheists who see the -Christians- as the threat! Some of them take Republican atheist-bashing personal, but a few are a little extreme (IMO) and want to banish any theistic meme from our culture. The angrier these two groups get with each other, the stronger the rhetoric on each side, and of course the stronger the rhetoric, the angrier they get! It's a battle that can never be won or resolved, but it keeps some politicians, Christian leaders, and journalists in a job.
Ah, the question that haunts all atheists eh? Well actually, even though there isn't enough proof it does not mean God does or does not exist. It is simply in your perception and personal belief. Considering that almost all theists are indoctrined since birth it is very normal to see the blind belief. For many, it's a comfort. For some, it's a truth. There are and always will be many reasons for belief. The problem is that we can never truly know if God exists or not with our current knowledge. Ofcourse that's where religion comes in to tell you to believe and atheists simply ask for more proof to actually believe. My belief is that agnosticism is the correct path for any individual doubting his/her beliefs because no one knows for sure.
Theists and Agnostics... what do you think an atheist is?
It is highly annoying that so many people do not understand what an atheist is. Really any ignorance is annoying, but today this one in particular has me upset. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Being an atheist is not necessarily the claim that no gods exist (although some would be so bold as to make that claim). Most atheists are not closed minded at all, but extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and I do not think there will ever be sufficient evidence to prove there is a god. However, should such evidence be presented someday, and it met the burden of proof, atheists would be some of the first to admit they were wrong. Should that proof be specific to a single god, like perhaps the god of the bible, I am certain followers of other beliefs would deny the evidence for as long as they could stand the ridicule. Of course, convincing me that a god exists, and convincing me that god is worthy of worship are too different things, but we can discuss that another time. Hopefully that clears things up a bit, but I am very interested in hearing what the outsiders view atheists to be.
Why does it seem most theists are misunderstanding towards atheists?
I've seen plenty of theists/atheist questions here and in every single one, theists seem so misunderstanding of atheist beliefs. There's this whole "life-after-death" debate that most theists just don't seem to get when they look at it of it from an atheist's point of view. We aren't a bunch of pessimists. Believing this is our only life helps us learn to live this life to the fullest without having to think about wether something is wrong or right. Good and bad are two completely opinionated things. No deity should be able force us to spend all of eternity suffering just because we did something they don't like. That'd be nothing more than dictatership. Would you like to believe that your God is no better than Hitler? Also, all atheists don't hate all theists (though some do) and when we say "Nothing happens when you die" we mean your body and mind are the only thing there is to you so when your body dies off then your mind, being nothing more than your conciousness being controlled and carried on by your brain, will be forced to die off too. You can't imagine (I mean this literally) what it's like to be dead because your mind can't experience it. It really is the end of EVERYTHING for you. I believe this is why all creatures fear death and danger. It's the end and you can't do anything from there on. You can't continue on with your purpose in life (which I believe is our nature-given purpose which is to carry on our genes). I believe this is why all spiritual religion is based upon something happenning after you die. It gives people comfort of not having to worry about death because there will be something good afterwards. As for the whole Heaven and Hell thing. I think that's not much different than parents telling their children stories of evil creatures that will get them if they don't behave, just to get them to follow the rules. I now realize that this is more of a rant than a question... feel free to comment and I hope there is at least one understanding theist out there who can post an interesting, and intellectual (and not offensive/defensive) answer. I wasn't trying to prove anybody right or wrong here. Just giving my point of view on something.
Why is it so hard for Atheists to understand that we completely comprehend their stance?
"why is it not ordinary that you'll be able to comprehend that GOD won't be able to be comprehend with human good judgment ?" in case you do not use good judgment to comprehend issues, then what do you take advantage of? "GOD is the author of universe, earth, plant, animal and guy and positively good judgment !" great fact. coach it. "so it truly is apparent that GOD is previous good judgment !" What does this even propose? If a scientist creates a disease, does that propose the scientist is "previous the disease?" Your actuality makes no experience. "please comprehend your silliness then repent and settle for JESUS !" you've presented no party of my silliness, nor have you ever presented any reason I might want to settle for Jesus. "JESUS love you and choose you to settle for HIM to change into your savior... " Savior from what precisely? provide info that you already know what Jesus does not does not do. provide info that a savior is even needed. "ought to admit To me GOD is a secret" I have a good time with you honesty. It also means that you've given me easily no reason to have self belief any of the belongings you've stated about God is actual.
Why do a lot of theists think atheists are necessarily evil?
Shocked and disgusted is a bit of powerful, however I have visible a few fairly brainless feedback from humans calling themselves atheists, I do not imply models of humour to place a factor throughout, however simply makes an attempt at undeniable bullying. Recently I've visible particularly a couple of questions from humans who appear to be without a doubt involved through what they understand to be truly animosity among atheists and theists right here, I feel they're over-reacting, but it surely suggests that there are a few fairly inconsiderate participants who're most effective desirous about bashing different humans for his or her ideals and critiques, alternatively than seeking to arise with a legitimate argument, and the relaxation folks get lumped in with this detail.
I think what you're getting at is the most fundamental of all questions - "why is there something instead of nothing?"Theists prefer the explanation that some sort of supernatural intelligent being created everything. Atheists don't find that very convincing, so instead you could reasonably assume that most of them (not all) would probably favor the explanation that the universe came about through naturalistic processes (that are as-yet not understood).Occam's Razor suggests that the simpler explanation is more likely to be correct. So which is "simpler"? A god? Or naturalistic processes?Let's admit right off that we do not know why there is something rather than nothing. And that neither explanation is all that satisfying. As Carl Sagan like to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Do we have extraordinary evidence that a god created the universe? No, we don't. Do we have extraordinary evidence that everything came about through naturalistic processes? No, we don't. Are both versions of why there is a universe "extraordinary claims"? Yes, absolutely.Is a universe arising all by itself from nothing a "simple explanation"? No. Is an intelligent being capable of simply willing a universe into existence a "simple explanation"? No. But a being capable of creating a universe would certainly need to be more complex than a universe, so Occam's Razor would suggest the no god position is more likely to be true.