Fundamentalism and Atheism

[PEPCIS]

I’m gonna seperate my answer to your post into two different posts because one deals more with the metaphysical aspects of what motivates Atheism, while the other is a more logical and factual approach to the questions at hand. First, the metaphysical.

I am starting to think you are trolling here.

Don’t be absurd. If I’m a troll, you’re a troll. We’re both discussing this, and we both have understandings that are different than each other. You don’t agree with my assessment, and that angers you - hence the charge of being a troll. However, I am not looking to upset anyone.

If you’re getting upset, you ought not to be. This only lends to understandings of people like CWBetts that Atheists are just like Fundamentalists.

I’m interested in giving you an honest assessment of the evolution of atheistic thought over the last several decades, as I’ve seen it progress in my own lifetime. I don’t know how old you are, but even many of the older atheists have fallen into the same trap of cobbling these two words together in an illogical manner.

As I’ve stated, this has been done in an effort to control the flow of logic in debates with Theists. Traditionally speaking, the argument has always been presented to the Atheist that there is no such thing as a TRUE Atheist, because only someone with absolute knowledge could be an Atheist. This necessitates that the Atheist would reevaluate their position, and move toward the Agnostic position. But Agnostics don’t attack Theists, because what’s the point? What if there REALLY is a God, and you’ve been attacking His followers? How’s that going to play out?

A true Atheist doesn’t care if he doesn’t have absolute knowledge. He holds his position because he hates anything that smacks - most particularly - of the Christian God. Why? Because it is the Christian God in our country that has held power and sway over much of the political and social progress of our nation. People that are Atheistic are typically pro-choice, pro-evolution, to each his own regarding gay marriage, etc, etc.

In other words, on nearly all of the SOCIAL issues, Atheists oppose Christians. This is the driving force of the TRUE atheist, and not anything to do with the logical understanding of the definitions of the terms “agnostic” and “atheist.” It also shows how - and why - it is that Atheists have tried to control the debate with Theists.

I hope that this helps. This may not be appealing to Atheists in general, but it should help in understanding where it is that I am coming from, and why it is that I have stated some of the things that I have.

 

[bridgeforsale]

I’m gonna seperate my answer to your post into two different posts because one deals more with the metaphysical aspects of what motivates Atheism, while the other is a more logical and factual approach to the questions at hand. First, the metaphysical.

You mean common sense & logic

Oh and btw, you can be agnostic as to the broader question of whether or not some sort of transcendent consciousness (call it god if you like) might exist, but thoroughly convinced religion is a crock of dung (as I am).

 

[PEPCIS]

Firstly as you state atheist literally means ‘without-god’. If I do not have a theistic belief it does not automatically follow that I also believe there IS NO GOD. Given that I have already claimed that the existence of a god is unKNOWABLE that would be absurd. However as I am still WITHOUT-god I am an atheist.

As the debate has progressed, we have attempted to clearly define the terms “atheist” and “agnostic.” In your first sentence you give a definition of atheist, and then give the antithetical definition, and claim that they mean the same.

The term “atheist” is not a simple (as you said) one-line dictionary definition. The term is not limited to a break-down of the parts of the word. The connotations of its usage deal specifically with those opposed to any concept of supernatural beings. But you want to take it and use it as a simple one-line definition that deals with “anti-Theism”, which is a different, albeit, subtle difference in meaning.

Historically, the term “atheist” deals with BELIEF. An atheist DOES NOT BELIEVE in God/gods. If you say “I also believe that there COULD be a God (agnosticism),” then you are mixing definitions.

If the definition of atheist means “without god” (no belief in God/gods) then how can you say that “it does not automatically follow that I also believe that there IS NO GOD”? That is a logical fallacy, because one contradicts the other.

Albert:

You are correct that every intellectually honest person is agnostic. However you are incorrect that agnosticism deals with belief. This is probably where your misunderstanding is coming from. It does not deal with what you believe in regard to the existence of a god, but what you believe you KNOW regarding the existence of a god.

That’s semantics. I hope you know that. The difference between “what you believe in regard to the existence of a god, [and] what you believe you KNOW regarding the existence of a god.” Both are BELIEFS. Agnosticism deals with BELIEF.

You even contradicted yourself, as I highlighted above. You claim that agnosticism does not deal with belief, and then you go on to state that “It does not deal with what you believe in regard to the existence of a god, but what you believe you KNOW regarding the existence of a god.”

So the two competing definitions of agnosticism are (according to you):

1. 
   *]it deals with what you believe [you know] in regard to the existence of a god
   *]it deals with what you believe you know regarding the existence of a god
   
   As you’ll notice, I placed “you know” in brackets in the first one, because all belief is based on what we believe to be true.
   
   
   Albert:
   

   Also nothing has been hijacked. People like me are just fed up being mis-characterized and have therefore decided to explain to people like you what it is we actually believe. I am an atheist; I do not believe there is NO GOD!

   As I said, if you REALLY want to continue with this belief, you are well within your rights to do so. No one can stop you from believing what you believe. But if you want to debate the terms “atheist” and “agnostic” and we have a dictionary serve as a mediator, then you are WRONG when you use the term atheist to state you “do not believe [that] there is NO GOD!”
   
   If you state that you “do not believe [that] there is NO GOD”, that is the same as reconstructing the sentence to logically state that you believe that there COULD be a God, or even that there IS a God. Neither of those statements is logicallay compatible with the definition of “atheism.”
   
   
   Albert:
   

   Also one-liners has nothing to do with it, I posted about ten links that highlight your mistake in detail.

   I ignored them because they all say the same thing that YOU’RE saying. Since I’m not debating them, I ignored them and concentrated on you. If you would like me to comment on a specific statement that one of those sites makes, I’d be happy to do so.
   
   
   Albert:
   

   I am not sure how else to explain this you are simply incorrect. It’s like me telling you 2+2=4 and you say NO it equals 5.

   It’s absolutely NOTHING like that. Logic is logic, and I have shown logically that you are incorrect, and you refuse to engage the matter logically.
   
   
   Albert:
   

   PLEASE FIND ME ONE SOURCE THAT SHOWS AGNOSTICISM TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAT A BELIEF OR CLAIM ABOUT KNOWLEDGE!!! Until you do i can not take you seriously as even by you definition…
   
   

   "A - Gnostic comes from the Greek a meaning “without” and Gnosis, meaning knowledge

   . Hence, one who is agnostic is one who believes that there is insufficient knowledge to determine the existence of God/gods."

   
   Well, according to my definition above, Gnostics BELIEVE that there is insufficient knowledge to determine the existence of God/gods. You show me how it is (other than a one-line dictionary assessment) that Gnostics do not base their position on belief, and I’ll relent.
   
   It’s a fact that atheists are no better than theists when it comes to many of supernatural concepts. Theists and Atheists are equal in that they both BELIEVE something specific in regards to the origins of the universe. An agnostic could hold the same belief as an atheist, but it doesn’t make him an atheist, any more than it would make an atheist a theist simply because he believes in the Big Bang theory.

 

[PEPCIS]

I think the only area the terms get confusing is when we’re talking about individual religious beliefs (verses a belief in god or a claim that insufficient information exists to determine whether or not a god exists). For instance, with regard to the question of whether or not god exists, I’m agnostic. But with regard to religion, I think there’s more than enough information to conclude religion is nonsense (with no substantive factual basis). I’m really not sure what to call this (it’s not atheist, because theism strictly refers to belief in a god, and consequently a-theism is disbelief in god, which doesn’t accurately describe my view). Anyway, I’m not really sure I care at this point what the proper term should be

Well, you’ve hit upon some good points there. It has been my attempt to differentiate between these subtle differences. It is those subtle differences which can sometimes confuse. But, you are correct that “a-theism is a disbelief in god”.

 

[PEPCIS]

Atheist is in fact a meaningless word. All it tells you is someone does not have a theistic believe, other than that it tells you nothing about a person. It is like calling someone a non football fan, it serves very little descriptive purpose, as it does not tell you what sport the person actually does like.

No, bridgeforsale found some interesting points to ponder. However, as you have just stated it here, you have entered a place of semantics. Contemporary usage of the term “theism” would allow you to call Bhuddism a theistic belief, even though a Bhuddist does not believe in any gods.

Your insistence on using the term “theistic” in place of “Christian” or some other religious believer does more harm than good when it comes to understanding the differences, because it fogs the issue. Saying that Atheism means that someone does not have a theistic belief may be accurate, but its semantically different than saying that Atheism means that you do not believe in God/gods. This is how you are able to jump through those intellectual hoops to arrive at your understanding.

Albert:

Atheism does not you tell you anything about what a person actually does believe. . .

That’s not true. It tells you SPECIFICALLY that an atheist does not believe in God/gods. For you to then claim that many atheists do believe that there is a god makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Albert:

I.E. theists claim there are gods, we who reject those claims are atheist. This does no mean *we have to *claim there are NO gods.

Semantics.

 

[PEPCIS]

You mean common sense & logic

Oh and btw, you can be agnostic as to the broader question of whether or not some sort of transcendent consciousness (call it god if you like) might exist, but thoroughly convinced religion is a crock of dung (as I am).

I thoroughly agree.

 

[Jvrlns]

I know. Many strong atheist have book shelves full of authors who stake claims against any form of God. I too find it odd that one would spend so much time on subjects that ‘isn’t really there’.

It would be like me going out of my way to disprove the existence of The Tooth fairy. I could write books about it, start a Group, and make clever bumper stickers. How many people do you know with a catalogue of books trying to refute that there is NO Tooth Fairy? I don’t know any, but I do know many people who spend a lot of time trying to sort out that there is no God? I don’t get it? If an atheist lacks the belief in a God, then why bother?

I think it is because many atheists consider religion as a perversion of human thought, something akin as not growing up intellectually, so they feel it’s their duty to free humanity from something they consider intellectual slavery.

 

[bridgeforsale]

I think it is because many atheists consider religion as a perversion of human thought, something akin as not growing up intellectually, so they feel it’s their duty to free humanity from something they consider intellectual slavery.

I would say it’s a holdover from ancient man (that should have probably been dispensed with long ago). If we want to adhere to theism, it should at least have a rational basis. Insisting on the veracity of bizarre ancient claims (that simply reduce to the absurd) creates conflict that’s very difficult to resolve. If, however, our views of god were based on rational (science based or at least philosophically grounded) information, then we could have an objective yard stick (and when I say philosophically grounded, I don’t mean philosophy that was designed to validate a preexisting set of mythical ancient claims).

 

[AlbertBall]

…

**
But one term deals specifically about what is KNOWN about a god and the other deals what one believes regarding the existence of a god. **

Ok let go through this one step at a time an see where we break down.

Do you agree that agnosticism deals specifically with knowledge?

Do you agree that atheism deals specifically with belief?

If you do not then please show me any definition that has agnosticism being anything other than about knowledge and atheism being anything other than about belief.

Do you agree that belief and knowledge are not the same thing?

 

[CWBetts]

I would say it’s a holdover from ancient man (that should have probably been dispensed with long ago). If we want to adhere to theism, it should at least have a rational basis. Insisting on the veracity of bizarre ancient claims (that simply reduce to the absurd) creates conflict that’s very difficult to resolve. If, however, our views of god were based on rational (science based or at least philosophically grounded) information, then we could have an objective yard stick (and when I say philosophically grounded, I don’t mean philosophy that was designed to validate a preexisting set of mythical ancient claims).

Catholicism is just such a system. Catholicism is the marriage of Faith and Reason. Did you realize that priests must essentially must have a BA in Philosophy before entering seminary? If their Bachelors was in another discipline, then they must spend a year or two taking philosophy classes before entering seminary. My own MA Theology program has prerequisites in philosophy which I am fulfilling with metaphysics and epistemology. So before you dismiss all theists as small-minded idiots, you should consider the facts.

 

[PEPCIS]

Ok let go through this one step at a time and see where we break down. Do you agree that agnosticism deals specifically with knowledge?

It’s more complicated than a simple yes or no answer. It also deals with BELIEF. To properly understand what the term “agnostic” means, it might be better to go straight to the person who coined the term: Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley stated in his book, Agnosticism and Christianity:

[SIGN]I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a “negative” creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.[/SIGN]

His assertion above, was as much directed to atheists as it was toward theists, because the atheists were claiming that there was no God/gods, and they were doing it without any objective truth in hand.

In the end, you can see that his position is one of faith. It assumes that his agnostic principle is true, which states “that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”

As I’m sure you have heard before, even a broken watch is correct twice a day. For the same token, someone may arrive at an objective truth apart from any objective knowledge, but it must be remembered that “objective” in this sense (as understood by Huxley and atheists in general) means “that which can be established scientifically through a scientific process.”

So, you see, agnosticism is nothing more than a belief system, whose chief principle is the belief that objective truth cannot be found outside of a scientific framework. I believe differently than that. My belief is different than that of Huxley.
Allbert:

Do you agree that atheism deals specifically with belief?

Most definitely.

Albert:

If you do not then please show me any definition that has agnosticism being anything other than about knowledge and atheism being anything other than about belief.

Well, as I’ve shown above, even Huxley understood that his position was a faith position. If you look at any definition, they must conclude the same thing. I would invite you to show me ANY definition of agnosticism which does not frame it in the sense of a belief.

Albert:

Do you agree that belief and knowledge are not the same thing?

Yes. But because they are interdependent on each other, it is often easier to show what is objectively true, than it is to state what is not dependent on belief.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Catholicism is just such a system. Catholicism is the marriage of Faith and Reason. Did you realize that priests must essentially must have a BA in Philosophy before entering seminary? If their Bachelors was in another discipline, then they must spend a year or two taking philosophy classes before entering seminary. My own MA Theology program has prerequisites in philosophy which I am fulfilling with metaphysics and epistemology. So before you dismiss all theists as small-minded idiots, you should consider the facts.

I’m well aware of the scholastic requirements of the priesthood (I’d say the Catholics and perhaps reformed Christians e.g. Presbyterians, have a pretty strong scholastic tradition).

Doesn’t matter though, you’re still wrong

 

[CWBetts]

I’m well aware of the scholastic requirements of the priesthood (I’d say the Catholics and perhaps reformed Christians e.g. Presbyterians, have a pretty strong scholastic tradition).

Doesn’t matter though, you’re still wrong

Wow. So much for the superior intellectual arguments of atheists.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Wow. So much for the superior intellectual arguments of atheists.

Touche

 

[Elijah_Baley]

There’s a very good reason why such a thing would be unthinkable, and it has exactly zero to do with the Catholic Church.

Again, my broadest point is that the religious — as opposed to the areligious — were the first abolitionists, and abolitionism was directly informed by religious belief. Popes have been of their time and ahead of their time.

I’m surprised you didn’t call out an error: The Saracens had been driven out of Iberia well before Dum Diveras. Nonetheless, I’d posit that their occupation of modern-day Spain and Portugal set the stage for Muslims — Saracens — as the new great enemy of Christendom.

And you want to compare the rationalism of skeptical thinkers (a list of people that includes nearly every single one of our most prominent founding fathers) to a madman like Hitler? Here’s where you guys begin to totally lose credibility.

I didn’t, initially, because I knew you’d react like that. The reality is that what made Hitler successful at taking over was not that he was a madman but that the political reality of the day demanded a scapegoat and a strong leader.

My position is that the religious, especially the Catholic Church, have consistently fought against eugenics and ideas like it even before Hitler was in power.

a present observation (so no crystal ball required).

… into the minds of your fellow men.

Uhhh, I’ve been pointing out your misperceptions of secular humanism (pretty much every assumption you’ve made has been a misperception). …

For example (please point out an axiom most or at least many secular humanists “seek to craft” and some sort of credible evidence that your assertion is true).

From the home page for the Council for Secular Humanism:

Atheism and agnosticism are silent on larger questions of values and meaning. If Meaning in life is not ordained from on high, what small-m meanings can we work out among ourselves? If eternal life is an illusion, how can we make the most of our only lives? As social beings sharing a godless world, how should we coexist?

The reason I didn’t mention which axioms the Council is trying to reinvent is because I didn’t find any on its Web site, despite repeated statements that it seeks to find what “small-m meanings we can work out among ourselves.” It was a first result when searching for Secular Humanisms on Google, only after the Wikipedia entry, and so I assumed it as an authority on the subject.

If you are not a united group, your morals are powerless. Out of charity, I assumed the best-case scenario would take hold.

The problem is this statement completely ignores history.

Show me the history, even if it means copying and pasting from earlier posts written to another board member.

And I apologize for the error I made earlier when I did not clarify that while theoretically possible for a massive pride to subvert God’s word, that person must have only a smattering of actual belief in God to attempt such heresy. With belief,

You mean sort of like it has (take, for instance, the United States and western society in general).

Exactly like it has. You are free to believe that Christian morality was originally by human design, but to start off by saying directly that your morality is designed by a human diminishes its strength in exactly the way I described.

And religion has been so humble over the centuries.

The religious — religion is a structure and cannot have human characteristics — are specifically taught to be humble. That is a central point of every religion I’m aware of. If individuals still submit to the temptation of excessive pride it is in direct contradiction of that belief. The morality is not at fault here but the believer.

The copious faults of the believers make me disagree even more strongly with secular humanism, described on the Web site as a kind of “democratized” morality. If people overtly have the power, and it is widely known that people are fallible, then where is the difference between secular humanism and “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law?”

If being moral is that much of a struggle, then maybe you need an imaginary story to help you behave yourself.

I was going to take a hard look at your belief that being moral isn’t difficult, but you left me with this wonderful nugget:

(but how is that my problem).

I don’t know. And yet there are people who actively attempt to convert me and convince me that I’m wrong in my belief in God. For some reason, it is their problem that I believe differently than they, and I’m constantly on the defensive when the subject is broached.

I’ve only recently learned to hold my tongue and pick my battles, but I tend to let loose on the Internet, still. I have my vices, and at the moment I’m compensating by practicing patience.

More after the jump.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Ummm, well no, we just admit man’s fallible hand is the only one that creates any axioms…there’s no invisible friend writing rules for us; if there was I suspect they’d be a little more comprehensive than the ten commandments

Emphasis added. Read PEPCIS’ quote from Huxley. You cannot be truly atheist unless you have absolute knowledge God does not exist. Just so, you cannot admit something unless you have absolute knowledge to the contrary.

As for the comprehensiveness, brevity is the soul of wit, remember. Note that only seven commandments guide the morality in human behavior towards other human beings, and these are as concise — not short, but concise — as anything anyone else has come up with. Is there a specific commandment of the last seven which you’d rather excise?

There is a gap between Christian morality and Christian practice. I’ve been arguing for Christian morality, and you’ve been attacking Christian practice. So rarely does Christian practice so perfectly model Christian behavior that the Catholic Church has saints for us to recognize as examples, so if your point that Christians have committed grave evil is supposed to be earth-shattering, it isn’t. The morality, however, is clear and good and unbesmirched.

Perhaps you could clarify what’s wrong with Christian morality, infinitely far from human behavior but closer every moment nevertheless. We’re arguing on different turf.

---

Incidentally, some points follow which I think were overlooked in the last post.

---

If you believe in God, there is a source to refresh the spiritual ache of being too tired to put up with something, or to keep fighting something unjust against all odds. It is the belief in God which keeps modern-day Davids with their slingshot in hand against insane odds and for seemingly quixotic goals. (Naturally, in every man’s mind he is David, but that’s a point for a different thread.)

For a theist caught in an struggle against the amoral, there is an infinite source to prevent “being too tired” to keep up the fight, and the connection to that source is only lessened as the faith is tested. An atheist has only an axiom crafted by man’s fallible hand.

(The last sentence was addressed, but neither the rest nor the thrust of the excerpt.)

---

I’d also like a considered response to Fides et Ratio directly, if possible. Take your time, as it’s pretty long, and do try not to skip anything.

---

Men kill in the name of God just as they resign from public office to spend more time with their family. Keeping the men in power is not as simple as preemptively killing families left and right; just so, keeping men from killing is not as simple as ignoring God.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Emphasis added. Read PEPCIS’ quote from Huxley. You cannot be truly atheist unless you have absolute knowledge God does not exist. Just so, you cannot admit something unless you have absolute knowledge to the contrary.

Gee, something I can respond to (that’s not a bare assertion, or an axiom from a secular organization I’ve never heard of & for the sake of polity I won’t even comment on what I think of your inferences in that regard). Nonetheless, absolute knowledge concerning the question of whether or not a transcendent consciousness of some sort (call it a god if you like) might exist can be distinguished from ones views towards religiosity. I think religion is stupid quite frankly, whereas belief or entertaining the idea of a god or something like a god (albeit undefined and given our current lack of information unknowable) can be reasonable (if there’s proper perspective). The claims of religion, IMHO, reduce to the absurd; and I think it’s religion at issue here (not whether or not one might entertain the idea of the existence of a god like being, albeit in a very obscure way)

 

[AlbertBall]

Emphasis added. Read PEPCIS’ quote from Huxley. You cannot be truly atheist unless you have absolute knowledge God does not exist. Just so, you cannot admit something unless you have absolute knowledge to the contrary.

Absolute knowledge is an absurd concept, they only thing one can have absolute knowledge of is that one exists in come sense of the word. Other than that we have absolute knowledge of nothing. This is why intellectuals never deal in absolutes.

I also am really struggling to understand why people are unable to separate belief and knowledge which are two TOTALLY different things.

 

[AlbertBall]

Yes. But because they are interdependent on each other, it is often easier to show what is objectively true, than it is to state what is not dependent on belief.

Ok lets clear this up first. They are not interdependent.

A belief may sometimes be based on knowledge,** that however does not mean it always is.** For example it is totally logical for someone to believe there wife is the best wife, or prettiest wife in the world. This has nothing to do with knowledge. Just like one may believe that a god exists, yet not claim to know. This again has nothing to do with knowledge.

Knowledge is based on belief, however that does not mean a belief is knowledge, unless you mean what an individual claims to be knowledge counts as knowledge. I would not accept that claim. For example if someone claims to know that 2+2=10, then this is NOT knowledge, it is in fact an incorrect believe. Knowledge has to be justified.

So in short i can believe something regardless of knowledge.

 

[AlbertBall]

It’s more complicated than a simple yes or no answer. It also deals with BELIEF. To properly understand what the term “agnostic” means, it might be better to go straight to the person who coined the term: Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley stated in his book, Agnosticism and Christianity:

[SIGN]I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a “negative” creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.[/SIGN]

His assertion above, was as much directed to atheists as it was toward theists, because the atheists were claiming that there was no God/gods, and they were doing it without any objective truth in hand.

In the end, you can see that his position is one of faith. It assumes that his agnostic principle is true, which states “that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”

As I’m sure you have heard before, even a broken watch is correct twice a day. For the same token, someone may arrive at an objective truth apart from any objective knowledge, but it must be remembered that “objective” in this sense (as understood by Huxley and atheists in general) means “that which can be established scientifically through a scientific process.”

So, you see, agnosticism is nothing more than a belief system, whose chief principle is the belief that objective truth cannot be found outside of a scientific framework. I believe differently than that. My belief is different than that of Huxley.

Well in actual fact the first atheists where the christians, but that is OT.

Ok to cut out the semantics i will grant you that agnosticism is a belief, for it makes zero difference to the position.

“that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty”

I CAN hold the position that i am not certain of the objective truth about the existence of god, but i still believe there is no god. I am just not claiming that belief to be justifiable, I.E. knowledge. As i have explained beliefs need NOT be based on knowledge.
I.E I cannot KNOW if there is life out-with earth, but i can believe there is/isn’t.

For your position to hold true, then you must show why i cannot believe there is no god without knowing, and that is me granting you that atheism means someone that believes there is no god when in actual fact it does not.