We're All Atheists
By matersfish
@matersfish (6306)
United States
April 30, 2012 9:46pm CST
I was watching a repeat of River Monsters tonight, and Jeremy Wade was visiting the Congo in Africa to chase down a freshwater snakehead fish reportedly responsible for killing people. The people of the region believe that this fish isn’t simply a fish, but rather a legitimate god. They worship and fear this snakehead spirit. Their belief in this fish’s power is as real as a Christian’s belief in their god. Then it hit me – although these people believe in a god, there are infinitely more gods they don’t believe in.
So they’re atheists. Right?
Now, they don’t deny the existence of all deities. They believe in at least one that I’m aware of: The Mongusu. But since the dawn of man, there have been conceivably millions of gods. So it’s rather obvious that these particular people of the Congo deny the existence of 99.999% of all other gods, if only by virtue of unawareness.
Of course, one might argue that the belief in at least one god is theism and not atheism. But if you deny the existence of an overwhelming majority of all gods worshiped, as the existence of one god makes possible the existence of all gods, then you’re still denying the existence of gods.
As an agnostic who does not believe in a god but is always open to all evidence presented, I currently deny the existence of any god. So, technically speaking, that does make me an atheist. I do not believe in any god.
You, assuming you’re religious and believe in only one god, share my disbelief for 99.999% of these gods. So we’re both atheists.
I’ve tried to frame this differently in my mind. I tried using werewolves. I don’t believe in any werewolves. And say you believe in one werewolf but don’t believe in any other werewolves of the millions of suspected werewolves. Well, how do you believe in a werewolf if you deny the existence of all other werewolves? How can there only be the one you believe in when you don’t believe in them? It’s that you do believe in yours, but just not the others.
But that means you’re just like me. You don’t believe in werewolves.
So, there you have it. Common ground for all of us! We’re all atheists! 
I’m 100%; a religious person is just 99.999%.
We’re a whole lot closer than you think! 
What say you?
I’m 100%; a religious person is just 99.999%.
We’re a whole lot closer than you think!
What say you?7 responses
@Christoph56 (1504)
• Canada
1 May 12
Hey again, matersfish,
In the idea that we are all atheists, because of the fact that the religious denies all other gods, where would that put any form of agnostic? If someone has no opinion either way if any specific god exists, or not, then they are not denying the idea that any of them could possibly exist, or not. By that, they're denying the existence of 0% of the gods, and therefore, by your terms of what makes an atheist, the agnostic would be the most religious person in the world.
Or, you could put it in the same direction of calling the Atheist, religious. If the Atheist is 100% and the religious is 99.999%, then that would show that these two groups are extremely close. Really, just the concept that there is no God, is a matter of faith, as well, since belief is in the vast majority. Not going on any scientific testing, even concepts like the existence of the atom is a matter of faith by the majority, since the majority have never done, or seen testing to completely prove that the atom exists. We just hear that the atom exists, see that it's in the majority, and go along with it.
One thing that is extremely common, though, is that an Atheist has an urge inside of them, to have a debate :)
And, as a final note, a favorite quote of mine, that I have up on most of my social networking pages, is from Richard Dawkins, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
1 May 12
I've personally always felt as if agnostic people were inherently more open to evolving truth and thus always more likely to believe in whichever direction the evidence pointed.
A devout atheist or a devout religious person would be almost impossible to convince either way. To me, they're like Republicans and Democrats. 
But the agnostics are independents, and thus I can definitely buy what you're selling there -- agnostics are actually the more religious, because they're the most willing to be accepting of all religion. But they may also be the most atheistic, because they'd be more prone to deny based on logical, scientific conclusion--if any--and not on spite. (Not saying atheist = spite, of course, but I've met some bad ones, as I'm sure we all have!).
And I take your point on the atom, but there is also a provable reference for those types of things, whereas with a god, obviously, it's all just hope.
"One thing that is extremely common, though, is that an Atheist has an urge inside of them, to have a debate :)"
I definitely believe that to be true. I was going to keep my musings to myself until I checked myLot's Religion section and found that people have only been posting here an average of one post every two days or so. So, in the interest of debate, I posted.
But, rather quickly, there were discussions on top of mine. Now, I won't begrudge anyone their right to post! But I'm pretty sure the intent was to push this discussion down the list after they read it!
The same thing happened with my previous religious post. No one had made a post for days, then as soon as I posted, there were half a dozen topics on top of mine within an hour or two. Out of sight, out of mind...
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
That was exactly my point in this discussion. I don't know much about Dawkins. I don't tinker in the atheist community that much. But as I was watching people worship a fish as their god, it occurred to me (and I didn't add it in the OP because I didn't want to offend anyone) that most people's god would kill or curse or damn those innocent, peaceful, hard-working people of the Congo for simply not believing. And it's obvious that the big religions of the world don't give credence to fish worship.
So, at the root of it, we're all atheists.
But the agnostics are independents, and thus I can definitely buy what you're selling there -- agnostics are actually the more religious, because they're the most willing to be accepting of all religion. But they may also be the most atheistic, because they'd be more prone to deny based on logical, scientific conclusion--if any--and not on spite. (Not saying atheist = spite, of course, but I've met some bad ones, as I'm sure we all have!).
And I take your point on the atom, but there is also a provable reference for those types of things, whereas with a god, obviously, it's all just hope.
"One thing that is extremely common, though, is that an Atheist has an urge inside of them, to have a debate :)"
I definitely believe that to be true. I was going to keep my musings to myself until I checked myLot's Religion section and found that people have only been posting here an average of one post every two days or so. So, in the interest of debate, I posted.
But, rather quickly, there were discussions on top of mine. Now, I won't begrudge anyone their right to post! But I'm pretty sure the intent was to push this discussion down the list after they read it!
The same thing happened with my previous religious post. No one had made a post for days, then as soon as I posted, there were half a dozen topics on top of mine within an hour or two. Out of sight, out of mind...
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
That was exactly my point in this discussion. I don't know much about Dawkins. I don't tinker in the atheist community that much. But as I was watching people worship a fish as their god, it occurred to me (and I didn't add it in the OP because I didn't want to offend anyone) that most people's god would kill or curse or damn those innocent, peaceful, hard-working people of the Congo for simply not believing. And it's obvious that the big religions of the world don't give credence to fish worship.
So, at the root of it, we're all atheists.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
1 May 12
sounds like you have a point here...or not.
The biggest problem with being an atheist is not that you deny the existence of a particular God.You deny the existence of a creator of all the things you can see and the things you cannot see.If you read the bible you will notice that Paul tells you that the existence of a creator is written in everyone`s heart no matter if they heard about the judeo-christian God or not.So let`s say the default position for someone who is not "indoctrinated " is to assume there is a creator.Which i think it`s closer to the truth.
The biggest problem with being an atheist is not that you deny the existence of a particular God.You deny the existence of a creator of all the things you can see and the things you cannot see.If you read the bible you will notice that Paul tells you that the existence of a creator is written in everyone`s heart no matter if they heard about the judeo-christian God or not.So let`s say the default position for someone who is not "indoctrinated " is to assume there is a creator.Which i think it`s closer to the truth.@matersfish (6306)
• United States
1 May 12
Judging by your response, I don't think anything I wrote even remotely registered to begin with.
I also wasn't aware that there was a "problem" with being an atheist.
Thanks for the response.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
1 May 12
Yeah. But that's what I was saying when I cited that there have conceivably been millions of gods, and that those Congo people worship the fish the same way Christians worship their god (as per faith).
So I wasn't disagreeing with you there. I couldn't be. Because I said it first.
People always seek out understanding. We think. It's natural. When you can't figure out biology and other more advanced aspects of science because you live in a tree trunk and sh*t into a hole, you're naturally going to believe that a big fish that eats people is a god and that stars are holes in the sky or that the volcano needs sacrifices to stop spitting fire.
You're making an atheist's argument here about how non-comprehension of life birthed religion in the first place. So be careful.
But none of that was the point of my discussion.
Here's the point of my discussion:
1 million kids, 1 million islands, 1 million gods...
You don't believe in ANY of them. Do you?
Me either!
So we're both atheists!
(I figured if anyone would understand the werewolf analogy, well, it wouldn't be you.)
But none of that was the point of my discussion.
Here's the point of my discussion:
1 million kids, 1 million islands, 1 million gods...
You don't believe in ANY of them. Do you?
Me either!
So we're both atheists!
(I figured if anyone would understand the werewolf analogy, well, it wouldn't be you.)@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
1 May 12
Well i think there is a problem but it`s not my problem.
What i tried to say is that if you leave let`s say 1 million kids on 1 million remote islands they will grow and start to look around and 99,99% of them will reach the conclusion that they have been created once they ask themselves some questions.Probably one of them will look at some birds finches idk but it can happen.
So the big majority of them will be aware of a creator one way or another even if they will have different ideas about who that creator is and how he looks like.It is a small difference between that and the belief in werewolves.
What i tried to say is that if you leave let`s say 1 million kids on 1 million remote islands they will grow and start to look around and 99,99% of them will reach the conclusion that they have been created once they ask themselves some questions.Probably one of them will look at some birds finches idk but it can happen.
So the big majority of them will be aware of a creator one way or another even if they will have different ideas about who that creator is and how he looks like.It is a small difference between that and the belief in werewolves.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
4 May 12
I've heard that atheists practice a religion of sorts; humanism. Man is God.
http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm
So, there is no such thing as an atheist?
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
4 May 12
Only from a point of religion would "god" mean what a god means to the religious. An all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal creator is "god."
"Man is god" does not grant god the same. Placing importance with humans and not on a divine creator is the antithesis of religion, not itself religion. Attempting to create a correlation fails across the board.
If there's anything religious about humanism, then it's religious humanism. It's aptly named already, so there is no reason to muddle it by listing only humanism and blanketing atheism.
Thanks for the response.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
4 May 12
It depends how you define religion.For example if we define the religion this way :
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith "
Then humanism is pretty much a religion.A very tempting one though but unfortunately for its followers there isn`t too much truth in there.It allows others to mess out with our pride and to manipulate us while we are dreaming about being great thinkers.Most of the people won`t even notice that they will always tell you that these are their thoughts and their feelings.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
4 May 12
Maybe you guys can find the logic in some of the points you try to debate. I personally am taken aback and can't really see the point. Perhaps that's just one of the slight differences we have.
Iuliuxd, to keep this as short as possible, there is already something called RELIGIOUS humanism, as I plainly wrote, which is a branch, I'm sure, that some argumentative believers decided to create a box for. But to use "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" fails in general for one reason above all others: It will never be a "religion" with the same connotation as a "religion" serving a master. And that's whether we're going all the way back to Anu or if we're dealing with anyone else's god. There are no mythological aspects. There are no incredible powers.
You guys want to call it "religion" like a 2nd grader wanting to say "nanny-nanny boo-boo!"
Atheism and religion isn't the point.
Atheism and god is. And in atheism, a god is a deity to whom special and mythical and miraculous powers are subscribed -- working in those mysterious ways and holding divine wisdom, etc. The whole "man is god" deal is just saying that there is no divine creator and that man is at the top -- what you see is what you get.
Atheism and religion isn't the point.
Atheism and god is. And in atheism, a god is a deity to whom special and mythical and miraculous powers are subscribed -- working in those mysterious ways and holding divine wisdom, etc. The whole "man is god" deal is just saying that there is no divine creator and that man is at the top -- what you see is what you get.
Sorry for the delay... but now we are live and kickin'.. 
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
3 May 12
Nothing much of substance here to begin with. I just thought that we're all really similar, even people who believe in their god, because they still deny someone else's god.
And I'll get out of the way here so you can iuliuxd can debate some more!
Thanks for the response.
@samar54 (2454)
• Egypt
1 May 12
Not equal are the believer and the infidel never :
"And whoever invokes with Allah another god--he has no proof of this-- his reckoning is only with his Lord; surely the unbelievers shall not be successful."?Al-Muminoon-117
Those who disbelieve Our verses We will roast them in a Fire! As often as their skins are thoroughly burned,, We exchange their skin with We exchange their skin with another, in order that they taste the punishment. Surely, Allah is Mighty, the Wise. "An-Nesaa-56
I read years ago that the center of sensation in the skin and for this God said in the in Sura ?Al-Nisaa ( the women)the disbelievers that who burn their skin , He will change it to feel other punishment
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
1 May 12
Well, thanks for that. You've just damned everyone in this discussion except you to the fire.
Thanks for the response.
Thanks for the response.@matersfish (6306)
• United States
1 May 12
You didn't say it? But you just said it. And obviously you believe it. If you didn't believe, you would also burn in fire. But you're not the one burning in fire; you're the one who damned the rest of us to burn in fire by way of reminder.
But I see that the only person who took the meaning of my post is a person who doesn't believe in a god. Granted, four responders is far from a fair sampling, but all I was saying is that we all have common ground -- the believer and the nonbeliever.
Why? Because while you may be a believer and may subscribe to the Islamic faith with Allah and your Prophet (pbuh), you also are a nonbeliever in every other religion ever known to man except for the Islamic faith.
So, in the context of religion, you're extremely close to being an atheist!
@sherrybelle (707)
• United States
1 May 12
I'd say that werewolves fall into the same category as vampires. Neither of them exist in my reality.
I'd also say I'm a Christian and that I have a deep love and appreciation for Jesus Christ. In my world God is the father of Jesus Christ and of my spirit making Jesus my spirit brother.
Fortunately we're all entitled to what we hold in our own belief system. If what we choose to believe works out well for us...
maybe that's the only thing that matters.
