Atheism isn't real. It is just an illusion created by Satan. They will see the error in their ways.

I am a religious skeptic which is different than an atheist. I do not believe in God so I am answering. That being said, I have seen just as many angry believers as non believers. Not all non believers hate Christians or God. We do not like it when SOME Christians refuse to take "no" for an answer and bash us over the head with their Bible. I have asked a religious question or two. The purpose for this is because... I want to. I am curious. As far as getting angry with or treating Christians poorly, I would defy you to find anywhere where I have been unkind to any believer based on their religion. I have had it out with a few believers because I think they are asses but religion does not enter into the picture. In fact, go look at my friend's list. You shall find plenty of Christians there, including highly devout ones, as well as Wiccans, Satanists, a Muslim or two, etc. I do not need to convince myself that I am right. At this time, with the information I have right NOW, I believe that I am right. I do not ask or answer to convince myself of anything. My mind is open to being changed. That means that if I "feel" God or have something else happen that convinces me that I am wrong, I shall change my opinion. That does NOT mean that I answer in the religious sections to convince myself that I am right. I answer in the religious sections because sometimes I enjoy a good religious debate or discussion.

Atheists are real, no "if" about it. The ones I know - even those on AB - aren't trying to convince themselves of anything. Among them, I'm sure you'll find some angry ones - but I have to say that, if there's a "trendy" way for angry people to be right now, it's conservatives. In the last few days I have seen quite a few with chips on their shoulders. . Of course if you often ask such stupidly loaded questions of atheists, I wouldn't be surprised if you get more heated replies than most. Why your attitude?

Often it is a christian (or other religious type) that will start with the aggro - especially when a non-religious type simply points out an error in their facts or logic, which often happens. Also, atheists didn't send death threats to the catholic bishop here in Oz who insisted on abortion remaining illegal (for example) - whereas pro-choice folks faced a barrage of vitriolic threats from the christians during the same debate... Just an example...

I think there's plenty of anger to go around on both sides.

I am an atheist and I am a real person - just pinched myself to be sure and it HURT! May I ask how you characterize your own question here? Don't you think you are grossly generalizing? I'd like you to find one instance in which I have attacked a Christian because of his/her chosen belief system. I'd like you to review the body of my answers on AB and provide evidence that I am "angry" at people who are Christian. If I am irritated at you, it is not because of your faith. It is because you personally, lokbum,have generalized about the behavior of people whom you are lumping together as a group. I am not angry at Christians and rarely give Christians, as a group, any thought at all. Individual Christians who are friends, AB users or family members never earn my anger. If I am angry at someone who happens to be a Christian, it is not because they are Christian but because that person is being unjust. And I couldn't care less about being "trendy". It isn't on my agenda to convert or convince any other person regarding atheism. I think everyone's beliefs are intensely personal, and I wouldn't dream of criticizing another person's path or choices.

Atheists may or may not be real. You are not an atheist. You may not know any atheists personally. BUT atheists have been seen by other people (who have even made portraits of them) and written about in books, so you will just have to have faith that atheists exist. Now, to answer your question (which, because I'm noce, I will treat as a valid, reasonable bit of rhetoric even though you're starting to get on my nerves): We're not trying to convince ourselves that we're right, because that ship has sailed. We get personal with Christians because we know we're right (refer to point one) and resent you all trying to convince us YOU'RE right. And, yes, atheism IS the trendy thing to do, but not just for angry people. No, it's cool for everyone. This ride is open for everybody; hop on!

I assure you that atheists are real, first of all. Answerbag has a good many of them. Secondly, since it's generally religious people who make the death threats and explode themselves, the evidence would suggest that angry people tend to gravitate to religion. Thirdly, I don't know who's been so rude to you, but I'll bet it was someone on the internet. The internet being so removed from in-person interaction tends to encourage a kind of rudeness and meanness that is much rarer offline. In my own experience, neither Christians nor atheists have been so rude and angry when I encounter them in my daily life as when I encounter their counterparts on the internet. True, I can think of some hilariously grouchy atheists online, but even those are perfectly nice people when you talk to them in person. Perhaps you need to talk to a flesh and blood atheist, face-to-face, to have these discussions and get over these misconceptions that you have.

I have never seen a group of more vitriolic atheists. Granted, the blind faith evidenced by many religious people is frustrating for most atheists. But losing control of one's emotions or resorting to name calling is not what one would expect from a group that prides itself on logic and rationalism. I hesitate to count myself among those ranks.

Pushy personality types will try to push their beliefs on other people -- no matter what their beliefs. We have some of those here from both camps. For some reason, there seem to be more "attacks" from the atheist camp here at AB, perhaps because of the "age" issue with online users, but in the general population it's probably about evenly dispersed percentage wise.

Drop the evangelism and the lot of the christian will change overnight.

I'm neither angry nor trying to convince myself of anything. I'm an atheist because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for deities. Unless and until empirical evidence becomes available, I will remain an atheist. Also, if you want to see how angry people get personal with their attacks, look at some of the posts by Matthew. It's people like him that give Christians in general a bad name.

Did you know if you did not poke at them, chances are they won't poke at you. You can't ask questions calling them out and think they are going to become mousy and hide. Yes I know they ask questions that call for you to question your beliefs - egging you on to debate with them but if your strong in your beliefs you won't bite. We should try to make the world a better place by living a fruitful and caring life not so much in weeding out that which we are not willing to accept. Being religious means to love thy neighbor, even if that neighbor does not believe like you do. You would not knowingly belittle a loved one. To be a good shepherd you entice the sheep to follow, you don't drag them around. Make them want to follow you by showing them through your actions not by beating them with your words.

Atheists are very real. I haven't seen any trying to convince themselves they are right. I do see some responding to badly worded questions from some religious people, such as this one, and I have also seen the reverse happening. Personally I am an indifferent agnostic.

So, you must have hit that website that lists hundreds of reasons why god exists and decided to lump about half of them into this argument, eh? The one thing that never ceases to amaze me about your lot is how very incredulous you are when it comes to accepting or believing the 'existence of atheists' yet, how very quick you are to accept and believe in an invisible sky dweller without any questions asked

So called 'atheists' seem to get exercised about the subject of God. If there is no God, why get so exercised about it? ''Methinks the lady doth protest too much.''

Who says that atheists are trying to convince themselves their right? We know we are. It tends to be religious folks that can't accept that and feel the need to get on AB and ask ridiculously loaded questions in an attempt to provoke anger and prove your point. Is atheism a trend for angry people? No more it would seem than religion has been for thousands of years.

The true atheist denounces religions of all types, and doesn't need to prove themselves to anybody. The thing is that most 'atheists' are simply people who have problems with Christianity, and never have anything bad to say about any other relligion in the world.

Ehhh, sorry, you fail. I see more cynical, indifferent, and insinuating questions coming from Christians. In fact, I see insinuating questions like this one every damn time I log in---and it's almost always from a Christian. Btw, there's no need to convince myself of anything. Logic already told me what's real and what's not.

"Yes it is, because fate is based on destiny and luck!! Jesus Christ has failed, he's never been there all along, especially during moments of despair and anguish!! But there still is a good God, the true creator of Heaven, Earth, Hell and Jesus Christ which was a Messenger (an actual higher Angel) I'm not 100% atheist, I just don't believe in Jesus Christ!!"

No. What about the christians and their criticism of everyone and everything? Christians seem pretty angry, too.

I don't think I try to convince others of what I believe. I state my opinion, and then let another state theirs. I don't care if they don't believe what I do, it doesn't effect me. I also don't think I'm an angry person, I just think that religion is a false reality for people who can't cope with the truth of science and facts.

Atheists are real. Buddhists are atheists too. You'll find there are many individuals who were harmed severely some part of a belief in their past. You can rest assured they will point out the errors in old religious textbooks that cause harm to our society for the rest of their lives.

Atheists are real. They exist. I know a few. Personally, I believe atheism (or agnosticism) is simply a more suitable, and probably inevitable, stance for humans blessed with the gifts of reason and common sense. Religion is like, the training wheels (diapers?) of civilization. When mankind as we know it was in its infancy, we needed a lot to lean on for support and to fill in the gaps of our understanding of life, death, and the mysteries of the universe. As we move further toward unraveling these mysteries on our own as we mature as a species, we can take off the training wheels of religion and rely on ourselves for the answers.

Atheists think their always right, they want to believe and make other atheists out of other believers so they wont feel left alone :) ....Its simple, They know there is a higher power, They just refuse to believe it.

How can Atheists not be "real" when in this very question you confirm for yourself their existence through the accusations you label them with? Second, how come so many Christians automatically assume that Atheists are and think like them? Do you even know what an Atheist is? Why do you think we're as narrow minded and convinced of everything as you portray yourself to be? Hell, if I were a Christian, I would still think this question fails, just as much as I do now. Atheists don't convince themselves of anything, because Atheism is defined by a lack of belief. It isn't inwardly fighting something we might believe. We just don't. And many Atheists question what they do believe about evolution and science. Not every single one is sure of themselves in this subject, however something illogical like God isn't considered as anything valid by them. Your question is pretty bad, a huge generalization based offa misconception, and can easily be thrown back in your face, as well as that of many Christians, especially considering that I have seen some on here who wage holy wars most likely for themselves, rather than God. Don't dump me in your boat please. Not my fault yours doesn't have a steering mechanism.

Are you saying god is real and atheists are imaginary? I don't try to convince myself I'm right. If this is the type of xtain question you mean, expect to be challenged.

You know, it's pretty funny that you question the existence of Atheist, yet, you believe you have an invisible friend up in the sky. Notwithstanding that, if ever I met a bunch of people that needed to convince themselves of anything that would be so-called Christians about their faith and their beliefs which is the reason why they feel compelled and obligated to go around tooting their nonsense and shoving it down the throats of anyone they can. You people are the ones that have labeled Atheists as trendy, we haven't done any such thing. As a consequence, I gather that you're jealous of our independence, freedom, lack of fear of your fairytale and our ability to think for ourselves. Furthermore, if ever there was a bunch of angry people that'd be you. Why look at the tricks to resort to force others to believe as you do? Bombing abortion clinics, picketing dead soldiers funerals, changing the laws, threatening people, what next, mass hypnosis?

1) We aren't trying to convince ourselves - that's a definitional fallacy - one who is in need of "convincing" would be an agnostic. 2) Getting personal with Christians? Millenia of persecution ring a bell? It doesn't get much more personal than that. 3) If by "trendy" you mean, 'more and more people are waking up out of their delusion these days', then it certainly is. It's too bad you can't lynch us any more isn't it? I bet it was much easier to keep us in line, back in the day.

You talk of atheists getting personal when you just questioned whether atheists exist, and then called them all angry and suggested that they are atheists because it is the trendy thing to do. Isn't there a scripture somewhere about extracting a straw from your brother's eye when you have a rafter in your own eye?

This may not be an acceptable question. The Bible includes something about (King James Version) "Judge not least you be judged".

If Atheists aren't real, why do you feel so threatened by people who have to convince themselves that they're right? Better yet, do you think that if you left Atheists be (as in, don't change their laws, don't put disclaimer stickers on their science books, don't go shoving your religion down their throats, don't knock at their doors, don't threaten them), you'd ever know they exist? Who do you think has labeled Atheists as 'trendy' and 'cool'? I know who, y'all so called Xians have! See, you're doing all the PR campaing for us, we don't have do a thing just sit back and watch ya'll make fools out of yourselves and prove us right

The need to follow "I'm right" with "and you're wrong" causes all kinds of people who believe all kinds of things to be angry and to kindle anger in others.

Same could be said as to why Christians get rattled by it. I know if I truly believed in God and felt his love and all of that...I wouldn't ask questions like this one because none of the athiests would have gotten to me. I simply wouldn't care what they thought. You don't even truly believe your own bullshit, basically.

You got it. Atheists aren't real. But neither are you, and neither am I. We are beings that are imaginations of ourselves. We neither exist nor cease to exist. We are all one, yet we are all disconnected. Which means that none of us are right, and none of us are wrong. =) And if you want to talk about being trendy, see: The history of Christianity. Talk about jumping on the bandwagon.

O-k then..you appear to be under the impression that it is impossible not to have a belief in a god. Interesting. Well, then. Getting personal with questions. Like the other day when a catholic guy was getting pissed off with a debate we were having and he asked me how many hundreds children I had defiled in my godlessness. Angry people? I didn't know atheists were angry. Jesus christ, I'm damned near comatose most of the time. And generally what you see when an atheist speaks is passion, not anger.

Did you just ask if atheists are REAL?

What the hell are you talking about? 1. We are very real. Sleep with one eye open.. 2. We are already convinced we are right. No more trying. 3. Getting personal is the best way to express an idea to someone. Relate it to real people that they know-themselves. 4. It's not a trend and it's not for angry people. However, questions like yours and the people who utter them do make me angry.

This person was on AB for 2 days in the first part of Dec-08. Why bother?

Atheists are real, they are just wrong.

Yes; probably trendy - or more specifically, 'politically correct', to be atheistic in view. Even litigatory trends tend towards atheistic facilitation and lock out the religious consideration. But I'd like to leave a few thoughts for Consideration here, as most atheists are also evolutionists. Therefore, enjoy the Following: PROFESSORS: GIG’S & GENG’S WISDOM TIME AGAIN: EVOLUTION: Monkey-Ape Time Mrs Iva Tail To Tell (Dean of Makittup University) declared, "Our direct forefathers were gorillas. We straightened our backs and shortened our arms. The latter [or is that ladder?] meant we couldn't have such high shelves of course. But you can't have everything. Yes, we must have come from gorillas because they look more like us on the outside than anything else. That's obvious proof". "Yes", said Prof Gig (Professor in nuts bolts and screws of all kinds), "many years ago they used to talk about how intelligent dogs were, but now we say how intelligent gorillas are. Soon we will have research to prove that they are more intelligent than all other animals; if we can get someone to fund it". Mrs Soarit of Perth WA says, "I watched it on TV, how they put a monkey in a room with a box and put a banana on a string that he couldn't reach. The monkey worked out to move the box over and get onto it to get the banana. The only thing is I've seen a dog do the same thing years before". Dr Ivanew Mith (Vetinary Surgeon of Wefixit Clinic) said, "a gorillas stomach is very different from ours and many other parts. If we ate what a gorilla eats in a day (bamboo shoots) we would be dead. We are more like a horse in eating habits and can eat most things they do. Also we can eat most things birds eat. So horses or birds must be our closest relatives". Dr R E Movitt (Brain Surgeon of Qurem Hospital) said, "Talk is made of people having a so called "human" extra piece on our brains, that apes don't have, that makes us more intelligent. But there are many people who are born without this section as a deformity but it creates no thinking or action disability: The person is completely normal". Prof Gig stated in regard these things; "there are always facts we need to ignore in the pursuit of theoretical science and funding. In this case quite a lot of facts. But then we also get a lot of funding here, as it's a popular theory". Miss Itneedsta Makesens commented, "even if we found a group of monkeys that once wrote their history it still wouldn't prove that apes changed into man. All it would prove is that we found an intelligent group of apes. And anyone with any imagination could come up with another theory of our existence that would sound far more realistic than apes changing into people _ or at least equally as irrational". Why didn't I evolve into a human so that nothing would step on me? Evolution Dr F Roard (Phd., DOB, FBI, KGB, MIA, POT) said, "things all changed by deformities that survived and got passed on. So we believe that something as complex as an eye just happened by chance. Over MILLIONS of years, of course. It makes it sound more believable when we say that because no one can conceive millions of years. So each deformity that went into making an eye was passed on to the next generation. Now I know what you are thinking. You are wondering why we can't seem to find loads of animals, insects or people existing today with only partly formed eyes. Yes, it is true that there would need to be countless masses of them, for the working eye to exist on such a large scale. Particularly considering the seemingly endless intermediate steps and those who would have therefore failed to evolve the rest of the eye correctly by chance. We try to ignore these facts in the interest of 'truth'. And the theory is popular." Professor Messa of the Institute for Lost Scientists said, "We believe the other theory where evolution happened because things decided that they needed to change for their environment. Animals also did this. A lizard decided that it wasn't safe or getting enough food on the ground so it thought about the problem and decided that wings were the best solution to the problem and so he'd become a bird. It realised that this would take MILLIONS of years, of course. So as each of its children were born the lizard passed on his plan so that the children would carry on that approach to the problem. They, in turn, had to pass on this approach to their children to resolve the problem also. He had to make sure that they kept on with that plan or they would die out from the problem that they needed to change for. Fortunately he could foresee this problem becoming bad enough to need to make this change MILLIONS of YEARS before they actually would die out. Strangely enough lizards didn't die out anyway. So it was all in vain. But birds are glad that lizards did so; and now some birds feed on lizards, making it all the better that lizards didn't die out, but leaving lizards wondering about the wisdom of it." Miss White of Brisbane asked, "If we are evolving does that mean we may end up being little green men and going to other planets"? Professor I Dunno of the Institute for Unemployed Scientists said, "one day life just suddenly sprang up and there was an incredibly complex living cell". I asked how this could happen. He explained that it was sort of statistical/magical luck. "Then the cell got lonely and decided it wanted another one; so it worked out how to evolve so it would be capable of splitting (highly intelligent these cells); and did so. And then there were 2 of them", he said. "And before you know it they were just splitting everywhere and we had piles and piles of them: All over the place". I asked him how no life had ever existed throughout all eternity before that time? "Well this has probably happened elsewhere, I'd suppose", he said. "So this amazing magic of an appearing complex living cell just popping up from nowhere has happened other times you feel professor", I asked? "Well, over many MILLIONS of years, you see", he replied. Mr/Ms Los Tie-Dentitti says, "women have evolved into men's bodies". Mr I. L. Watchit asks, "I saw a documentary on TV about moths in a place in England. They explained how there used to be more light moths and few dark ones because the dark ones were seen on the light trees and eaten by birds. But now with so much smog the trees are dark and there are more dark moths, as the birds eat the light ones. But this only proves survival of the fittest. This doesn't prove the evolutionary theory because it was already known when the theory was invented. To prove the theory evidence would have to come forth to prove the theory itself, not the known facts it was based on."? Mr B Acake of Sydney asks, "as I have rheumatism in my back wouldn't it have been better to have stayed without one"? Of evolution Dr Pluggitt of Drippie University states, "yes, we now know that bugs turned into people". When I asked him how this could possibly be, he explained, "yes, well, it all happens over MILLIONS of years, you see. Anything can be believed if you talk about MILLIONS of years". PROFESSORS GENG AND GIG – AT IT AGAIN!! QUESTION: If we were to search for the Dead Center of EVOLUTION, would we find it at Darwin Cemetery, in Fred Flintstone’s Dinosaur Zoo or at a Barney’s Rubble’s Skeleton Bank??!! Ezekiel, Skeleton Bank Teller: ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones…’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Oh hear the word of the Lord.’ Dating Methods Professor Lessor of Fundus Institute commented, "we use the finest dating methods. And we know that we are right that these bones are MILLIONS of years old. Carbon dating has been shown to be correct sometimes, to some degree, over periods of hundreds of years _ usually only being hundreds of years out. And we have other dating methods now that are almost as accurate; particularly when we recalibrate our machines when we know what date is required". Mr Form at Hard Drive said, "I was watching a program on TV the other day that carbon dated a skull found in Australia to be 2,500 years old. But the scientists didn't like that date so they went around trying all these other dating methods and finally found one that said it was about 60,000 to 70,000 years old and so they took those dates. When asked why they didn't use the carbon dating method that is so 'accurate' they said it was because the lime in the soil must have confused it". Dr G Etpade of Theoretic Institute stated, "we are at a new age now where we no longer have the problems of science in the past that almost always had theories that have been proven wrong in spite of them proving them right at the time. All our theories are correct because we have proven them right on TV. We also have a new advantage to use to convince people we're right called 'dating methods'. This is a cleaver idea where you use some instrument to obtain the date you want. We decide it's MILLIONS of years old then it becomes MILLIONS of years old". Elder Harris (The Church of Jesus Christ LDS missionary) questions, "I have heard that a rock formed by a volcano only a short time before was carbon dated to be MILLIONS of years old. Also that a rock only a few years old, brought back from the moon, was similarly dated. On both occasions the truth had been kept from those doing the dating. Why should anyone believe all this, unproven, MILLIONS of years stuff"? Dr Thinkitt of the Local Logicians Club said, "All accepted fact must be based on proven facts (premises). Therefore talk of MILLIONS of years is illogical as no one can PROVE what happened in a time of which we have no way to prove it absolutely correct. If someone makes a claim about ancient Egypt from known facts about Egypt it could be logical. But we have no written record of MILLIONS of years ago and we can't go back to prove or disprove the claim or the premises upon which it is based: Regardless of what instruments are used. No logician could accept someone saying they KNOW about MILLIONS of years ago as anything but the ravings of a fool". Miss Daytmee of Hobart says, "yes, well, my dating method is to play hard to get".

One reason that atheists are sometimes sharp with christians is that christians sometimes phrase their questions undiplomatically. This question is a prime example of the type. The first question is either deliberately phrased to be confrontational, or the writer has such limited literacy that he is unable to formulate the question in an non-confrontational way. As a service to the questioner I will rephrase it in a way that won't make him look like a loud-mouthed redneck. The first task is to try to disentangle the core of the question. I think the first part is could be reduced to Why are atheists still trying to convince themselves they are right? I think that this indicates that the questioner is muddled. Atheists are not trying to convince themselves: declaration of atheism implies one particular point of view, disbelief in gods. Since atheists are not trying to convince themselves it makes no sense to ask why they are trying to do so. I don't understand the next part of the question, the matter of getting personal. The normal assumption we would make is that the getting personal with christians when they ask question implies that the christians are asking the questions. I don't know if this is what the questioner means: there's no way to tell. One construal of the question is Why do atheists respond with ad hominem attacks when christians ask them questions? But it could be construed as Why do atheists frame the questions they ask christians undiplomatically? Strict application of grammatical usage favours the former construal. So before we can answer the question Why do atheists respond to christians asking questions with ad hominem attacks, we have to satisfy ourselves that atheists do, in fact, respond to questions from christians in this way. I suppose that some atheists might, especially if the questions were phrased as undiplomatically as the one that I am answering. One reason for such behaviour might be that one tends to respond aggressively to aggressive questioning. Not all of us do that, evidence for this conclusion being this measured response, but some people might. A polite question is more likely to elicit a polite response than rudely phrased one. Finally being an atheist has nothing to do with irritability. There are gentle, peaceful atheists like me who just want to help people to free themselves from the trammels of bronze-age superstition, and there are angry people whose lives are blighted by the actions of christians acting politically to restrict their freedom to choose their sexual partners, to decide what they are allowed to do with their sexual partners, and their freedom to abort unwanted foetuses. Being an atheist is not a trendy thing to be. It's not something that one chooses. However hard you look you find that there is no evidence for the existence of any god, and based on the evidence one is forced to conclude that is extremely improbable that gods exist, and this is a valid conclusion whether or not it is fashionable. I hope that this answer goes some way to resolving the confusion evident in the question.