Atheism

[annoyedwithskating]

hahaha i just read through this whole thread gipper is trying so hard to tear geoff a new asshole, but really, the thread was going fine until geoff had to pull some asinine comments and insults that he couldn't really back up like gipper and unknown soldier, but man, you guys are arguing over technicalities. geoff your just trying to be a douche, the way that the way is interpreted in society is large is the way that gipper presented it, you trying to argue against that while just saying hes dumb doesn't make either of you win the debate, but definitely shows you as the dumber one.

Expand Quote

 . but mainly, you are just a dick, im sure you suck at skating, and you definitely suck at life.

[close]

through all this, i forgot to even mention im agnostic, but mom was catholic who made me and my sis go to catholic school, but im over that shit now, the catholic church is a for profit corporation.
just to remind us this is slap, the one empirical insult here is you suck at skating, these personal attacks outside of the debate don't help your side.

gipper getting riled up in a thread makes this place.

please dont call people stupid until you actually know how to communicate. all i did was make a point, the point was simple and concise. reagan is a knowitall that doesnt know shit so he had to try to step. this whole debate is moronic. in fact it is not a debate, it is reagan trying to prove a non sequitur. but that is his problem.

the only point i was trying to make is that if you do not believe that there is a god, you are an atheist, even if you claim that there might be one (popular use of the word agnostic). i was just trying to point out that the original use of the term agnostic meant that one does not only not believe in god, but they do not believe in gnosticism, i.e. knowledge of things spiritual, hidden, etc....
for one to dissagree with that is like disagreeing with 2+2=4.

some people are just too full of themselves to engage in a healthy discussion.
obviously i said some stupid shit because i was frustrated, but i was not trying to get into a pissing contest.
with that, i really cant stand reagan. he is an ass with an over inflated sense of self.

[annoyedwithskating]

Expand Quote

Everyone is mostly atheist, unless you actively believe in every single god, goddess or other supernatural entity in history whether you've heard of them or not.

[close]

Wait, so being of a religion (say zen buddhism) means you believe in every single god goddess, etc.? That makes no sense. Being religious/theistic doesent mean you subscribe to every doctrine of every religion, does it?

no. there is no god inherent in Buddhism. being a theist simply means that you believe that there is some sort of deity, or god.

[nylin]

The only god I believe in is Mike Carroll.

[L33Tg33k]

One more point.  To insist that atheism is to believe whole heartedly in the absence of a god is counterintuitive to the reasoning process of what made most atheist what they are in the first place because it implies knowing the unknowable which is a logical fallacy.  I still call myself an atheist but I can't pretend to know there is no god, one reason being because I don't know what god is.  Positive atheist take a leap of faith (albeit a relatively small leap) in positing that they know that this undefined conceptual figure does not exist, but postulate as they will, nothing will make it fact.  I will continue to very much so doubt the existence of god, but let's not forget that the only thing we know is that we know nothing for certain.

I like semantical arguments as much as anyone else, but I'd rather talk about something more interesting like what constitutes a god.  Is god the catalyst for all creation?  Is god the multiverse we live in?  Does god even need to be a sentient being unto himself?  If he is, what would stop an atheist from denying it god status by dismissing it as a force of nature or just another creature at the mercy of existence itself the same as you or I?  Or are all of these questions too gay for Slap?

[4LOM]

Knowledge is supposed to be having information, or an experience of something that is real or true. ? Then after having that knowledge a person in good faith should believe that their knowledge is true knowledge, right? Do we believe what our eyes can see unconditionally? Or should be believe in logic and reason? Is there such a thing as having sacred knowledge and in turn should that lead us to further believe? Scientific rationale, cause and effect, are these really the elements of understanding our purpose as humans on this rock? Should we believe in instincts? or (women's) intuition? I have knowledge of my own experiences, yet somehow that is not something that can be equally shared with others after the experience is had. Sometimes all we have are words and an understanding that we too pass though situations that are unreal. whether it's real or not, we all hope to believe in what we consider to be the truth. Some just reach farther than others.

Some personal experiences provide knowledge, but some its better to be skeptical about.

A lot of the methods of knowing you mention are testable - is women's intuition statistically better than guesses?

Everyday experience and logic/math reliably provide some knowledge - but we can be mistaken about some personal experiences and should be skeptical that they happened.

Exceptional/extraordinary experiences or claims(leprechauns in the garden, sacred knowledge) are probably unreliable/nonveridical, so we shouldn't trust that such claims are true/experiences happened.

[L33Tg33k]

The only god I believe in is Mike Carroll.

All hail Cardiel

[annoyedwithskating]

One more point.  To insist that atheism is to believe whole heartedly in the absence of a god is counterintuitive to the reasoning process of what made most atheist what they are in the first place because it implies knowing the unknowable which is a logical fallacy.  I still call myself an atheist but I can't pretend to know there is no god, one reason being because I don't know what god is.  Positive atheist take a leap of faith (albeit a relatively small leap) in positing that they know that this undefined conceptual figure does not exist, but postulate as they will, nothing will make it fact.  I will continue to very much so doubt the existence of god, but let's not forget that the only thing we know is that we know nothing for certain.

I like semantical arguments as much as anyone else, but I'd rather talk about something more interesting like what constitutes a god.  Is god the catalyst for all creation?  Is god the multiverse we live in?  Does god even need to be a sentient being unto himself?  If he is, what would stop an atheist from denying it god status by dismissing it as a force of nature or just another creature at the mercy of existence itself the same as you or I?  Or are all of these questions too gay for Slap?

can we be friends?

[annoyedwithskating]

Expand Quote

Knowledge is supposed to be having information, or an experience of something that is real or true. ? Then after having that knowledge a person in good faith should believe that their knowledge is true knowledge, right? Do we believe what our eyes can see unconditionally? Or should be believe in logic and reason? Is there such a thing as having sacred knowledge and in turn should that lead us to further believe? Scientific rationale, cause and effect, are these really the elements of understanding our purpose as humans on this rock? Should we believe in instincts? or (women's) intuition? I have knowledge of my own experiences, yet somehow that is not something that can be equally shared with others after the experience is had. Sometimes all we have are words and an understanding that we too pass though situations that are unreal. whether it's real or not, we all hope to believe in what we consider to be the truth. Some just reach farther than others.

[close]

Some personal experiences provide knowledge, but some its better to be skeptical about.

A lot of the methods of knowing you mention are testable - is women's intuition statistically better than guesses?

Everyday experience and logic/math reliably provide some knowledge - but we can be mistaken about some personal experiences and should be skeptical that they happened.

Exceptional/extraordinary experiences or claims(leprechauns in the garden, sacred knowledge) are probably unreliable/nonveridical, so we shouldn't trust that such claims are true/experiences happened.

interesting points. knowledge is most often taken as something empirical. but as the history of ideas has shown us, empiricism = reificaction. the deification of concepts. to KNOW something is to BELIEVE something is true. to believe something rests upon our impulses and perceptions. we define our perceptions using a finite resource, our mind. the language that we use in order to understand the world that we live in is beyond limited. the very act of communicating is a negation of the substance of things. the idea that things are of a substance is logical, but removed from the substance themselves.
this leaves us with a conundrum. shall we acknowledge the void and continue to speak using objective terms, or do we communicate on a more vague, disconnected level. i personally believe it is a combination of the two. a true dialogue can only occur when the problem of interpretation is agreed on and the terms are settled. e.g., if one believes that it is possible to know not only that things ARE, but WHAT they are, they will be unable to come to a consensus concerning a matter with one who believes that at best we can describe what it APPEARS that things are. 
in my opinion, certain words serve no real good, e.g., to know. the word implies more than we are capable of. The word believe is also shallow and leaves room for those who want to justify their belief in a god or anything super natural. this has been done for quite some time now and honestly gets under my skin.
so we are stuck with limited language and an impossible situation. in the end we can only be responsible for our own beliefs and this is where many are frustrated and seek a more objective language.  i frustrate a lot of people because i contradict myself often. the reason is that many positions are equally tenable.
ok, im rambling. back to the atheist/agnostic question.
according to modern usage, we should all be agnostics in the sense that no one knows anything for sure. even dawkins acknowledged the possibility (marginal as it is) of the existence of a god. an atheist is not only someone who says "there IS NO god" but also one who maintains that "there might be a god, but i am not sure." now, if they say "there might be a god, but i am not sure, but i believe in one" they are a theist with reservations, not a theistic agnostic.

[Davy]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

The girl I want to fuck more than anybody else in the world is mormon. Fuck.

[close]

its chill bro, i lost my virginity to a mormon.
chin up!

[close]

Yep, not all Mormons are like there portrayed to be.

Are you a Mormon, Skater Austin?

[David]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Everyone is mostly atheist, unless you actively believe in every single god, goddess or other supernatural entity in history whether you've heard of them or not.

[close]

Wait, so being of a religion (say zen buddhism) means you believe in every single god goddess, etc.? That makes no sense. Being religious/theistic doesent mean you subscribe to every doctrine of every religion, does it?

[close]

no. there is no god inherent in Buddhism. being a theist simply means that you believe that there is some sort of deity, or god.

Right, but on the other hand some Buddhists texts do make a reference to Brahman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I agree with you on theism, I was just confused with what Grim was trying to say, that either you're an atheist or you believe in everything that every religion has to say.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Knowledge is supposed to be having information, or an experience of something that is real or true. ? Then after having that knowledge a person in good faith should believe that their knowledge is true knowledge, right? Do we believe what our eyes can see unconditionally? Or should be believe in logic and reason? Is there such a thing as having sacred knowledge and in turn should that lead us to further believe? Scientific rationale, cause and effect, are these really the elements of understanding our purpose as humans on this rock? Should we believe in instincts? or (women's) intuition? I have knowledge of my own experiences, yet somehow that is not something that can be equally shared with others after the experience is had. Sometimes all we have are words and an understanding that we too pass though situations that are unreal. whether it's real or not, we all hope to believe in what we consider to be the truth. Some just reach farther than others.

[close]

Some personal experiences provide knowledge, but some its better to be skeptical about.

A lot of the methods of knowing you mention are testable - is women's intuition statistically better than guesses?

Everyday experience and logic/math reliably provide some knowledge - but we can be mistaken about some personal experiences and should be skeptical that they happened.

Exceptional/extraordinary experiences or claims(leprechauns in the garden, sacred knowledge) are probably unreliable/nonveridical, so we shouldn't trust that such claims are true/experiences happened.

[close]

The word believe is also shallow and leaves room for those who want to justify their belief in a god or anything super natural.

Ok, but leaning towards the possibility that supernatural or paranormal events do occur is on another level with submitting to the concept of a deity or divinity/ higher power.

People can experience intense hallucinations while on drugs, or they can have dreams so moving and powerful so as to alter their lives entirely.  The purported evidence of lucid dreaming is crazy enough that some might deem it paranormal. Where dreams come from and whether these things are entirely psychological or not i cannot say, but it is definitely on the fringe of our understanding. I've heard people say that they do not believe in lucid dreaming. There's also out-of-body experiences. Should we label those as paranormal/supernatural occurences, some sort of extaordinary phenomon, or total imagination/hallucination derived from our subconscious mind or some other part of Freud's structural model of the psyche?

Expand Quote

[close]

Some personal experiences provide knowledge, but some its better to be skeptical about.

A lot of the methods of knowing you mention are testable - is women's intuition statistically better than guesses?

Everyday experience and logic/math reliably provide some knowledge - but we can be mistaken about some personal experiences and should be skeptical that they happened.

Exceptional/extraordinary experiences or claims(leprechauns in the garden, sacred knowledge) are probably unreliable/nonveridical, so we shouldn't trust that such claims are true/experiences happened.

There's nothing wrong with skepticism.

People make decisions based on intuition all the time. Some of them, I'm sure, are very important ones.

There are some forms of knowledge that can be gained only from mathematics and logic. There are other forms of knowledge that can be known only from experiences and anecdotal evidence.

Would you consider dreams to be unreliable, unveridical, non-events?

[annoyedwithskating]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Everyone is mostly atheist, unless you actively believe in every single god, goddess or other supernatural entity in history whether you've heard of them or not.

[close]

Wait, so being of a religion (say zen buddhism) means you believe in every single god goddess, etc.? That makes no sense. Being religious/theistic doesent mean you subscribe to every doctrine of every religion, does it?

[close]

no. there is no god inherent in Buddhism. being a theist simply means that you believe that there is some sort of deity, or god.

[close]

Right, but on the other hand some Buddhists texts do make a reference to Brahman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I agree with you on theism, I was just confused with what Grim was trying to say, that either you're an atheist or you believe in everything that every religion has to say.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Knowledge is supposed to be having information, or an experience of something that is real or true. ? Then after having that knowledge a person in good faith should believe that their knowledge is true knowledge, right? Do we believe what our eyes can see unconditionally? Or should be believe in logic and reason? Is there such a thing as having sacred knowledge and in turn should that lead us to further believe? Scientific rationale, cause and effect, are these really the elements of understanding our purpose as humans on this rock? Should we believe in instincts? or (women's) intuition? I have knowledge of my own experiences, yet somehow that is not something that can be equally shared with others after the experience is had. Sometimes all we have are words and an understanding that we too pass though situations that are unreal. whether it's real or not, we all hope to believe in what we consider to be the truth. Some just reach farther than others.

[close]

Some personal experiences provide knowledge, but some its better to be skeptical about.

A lot of the methods of knowing you mention are testable - is women's intuition statistically better than guesses?

Everyday experience and logic/math reliably provide some knowledge - but we can be mistaken about some personal experiences and should be skeptical that they happened.

Exceptional/extraordinary experiences or claims(leprechauns in the garden, sacred knowledge) are probably unreliable/nonveridical, so we shouldn't trust that such claims are true/experiences happened.

[close]

The word believe is also shallow and leaves room for those who want to justify their belief in a god or anything super natural.

[close]

Ok, but leaning towards the possibility that supernatural or paranormal events do occur is on another level than submitting to the concept of a deity or divinity/ higher power.

People can experience intense hallucinations while on drugs, or they can have dreams so moving and powerful so as to alter their lives entirely.  The purported evidence of lucid dreaming is crazy enough that some might deem it paranormal. Where dreams come from and whether these things are entirely psychological or not i cannot say, but it is definitely on the fringe of our understanding. I've heard people say that they do not believe in lucid dreaming. There's also out-of-body experiences. Should we label those as paranormal/supernatural occurences, some sort of extaordinary phenomon, or total imagination/hallucination derived from our subconscious mind or some other part of Freud's structural model of the psyche?

i personally do not believe in anything "supernatural", but I do agree with your point that there are things that happen that dont seem natural, and they might very well not be. i just cant really speak to them. i would probably side more with freud i suppose. there are things that dont make sense but are still considered physical though, vis quantum physics. i suppose you could still be considered an atheist if you believed in the supernatural without a belief in a deity. never really thought about that one.

[smokecrack]

Skater Austin's a Mormon. awesome



i have a semi-serious hypothetical here: to all the hardcore atheists (i was an atheist for over 10 years of my life as well,) could you still be an atheist if God revealed itself? like if you knew what God was and God came out and started high-fiving everybody, what would you guys do? would you still deny the existance of God even though you knew for certain that it exists or would you just hate God or what? because as an atheist you believe God is a fallacy because of logic, science and reason, but if God were real, then it would be illogical to deny it, right? would you form a rebellious anti-God coallition and gather up cronies just to spite God?

oh, and

[grimcity]

Expand Quote

Everyone is mostly atheist, unless you actively believe in every single god, goddess or other supernatural entity in history whether you've heard of them or not.

[close]

Wait, so being of a religion (say zen buddhism) means you believe in every single god goddess, etc.? That makes no sense. Being religious/theistic doesent mean you subscribe to every doctrine of every religion, does it?

That's not what I said. I said people are mostly atheist. Atheism is a lack of theistic belief... now let's say you're a Christian and believe in any of the figureheads in that faith.

...do you believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Ra, Apollo, or any other named gods you've never heard of? Probably not, and me either. Outside of the single religious focus of your faith (especially if there's an entity or entities) you don't have faith in any other religious dogmas. If you weren't mostly atheist, that would mean you'd have to believe in everything.

[David]

Ok, so you mean that by denying the other faiths in the world, most religious people are by your definition somewhat/mostly atheistic?

That's interesting but how can you be somewhat or mostly atheistic? either you have a religion or you don't. Although it would be interesting to say that truly theistic people should come to terms with all religions and see what they find.

[Manolo]

humans are so full of themselves with their certainties about stuff as mysterious as the universe we live in.
space is so fucking deep,how dare you pretend knowing what created it.if it ever been created,maybe it's just been here forever.
nobody exactly know what the fuck is going on.those who pretend so are just trying to sell something.
religion is a disease,a medieval prison for your mind.
there's an universal truth,the truth of rocks and elements it was there way before the all so self centered humans came around thinking they have everything figured out.fucking morons.

[grimcity]

Ok, so you mean that by denying the other faiths in the world, most religious people are by your definition somewhat/mostly atheistic?

I wouldn't say "denying" other faiths, it's simply a lack of having faith in anything outside your system of faith. I mean, you either have faith or you don't... not something you really deny.

That's interesting but how can you be somewhat or mostly atheistic? either you have a religion or you don't. Although it would be interesting to say that truly theistic people should come to terms with all religions and see what they find.

If you are a theist, in many if not most cases you are atheistic to other religions. Again, I'm not saying religious people are obligated to learn about every religion, I don't know where that came from. I'm just saying atheism shouldn't be a big mystery because basically everyone experiences it one way or the other... actively or passively.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

you're an idiot.

i left hte page opena nd posted this after grim instead of smokecrack. grimcity you are not an idiot smokecrack you are.

[David]

there's an universal truth,the truth of rocks and elements it was there way before the all so self centered humans came around thinking they have everything figured out.

It is a fire that became our earth. Separate the earth from the fire and you shall adhere more to that which is subtle than that which is coarse, through care and wisdom.

- Tabula Smaragdina

[Greg Ostertag]

FANS OF GOD...EXPLAIN THIS:

WHO WOULD INSEMINATE THE DARK PROPHET NANCY GRACE??? WHY WOULD GOD LET THAT HAPPEN??? WILL THIS BE THE ANTICHRIST YOUR BOOK FORETELLS?

[steenz]

I believe in god

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I guess by L33tg33k's definition of "agnostic atheist" that is what I would be.  That's the closest thing I have seen to not giving a shit.  I wear dogtags over here in Afghanistan and they need a religion for the sake of burial.  I tried really hard to get "N/A" on there but I did get them to put "None".  I also tried to get a viking funeral pyre put into my will but I guess I can't because I guess there are some serious EPA repercussions.  Bummer.  I have not seen the existence of any deity, nor do I feel compelled to seek out any answers.  Shit just is.  Oh I think I just found my philosophy!  "Shit just is."

my god (haha), i love you hate!.

[Beeda Weeda]

i am my own god.

[LesbianPUNCH]

Read Francis Schaeffer's writings.  His books contrast secular humanism with christianity, and he uses history to show the results of said contratsing world views.  he comes to some very fascinating conclusions.

I am not an atheist.

[annoyedwithskating]

Skater Austin's a Mormon. awesome



i have a semi-serious hypothetical here: to all the hardcore atheists (i was an atheist for over 10 years of my life as well,) could you still be an atheist if God revealed itself? like if you knew what God was and God came out and started high-fiving everybody, what would you guys do? would you still deny the existance of God even though you knew for certain that it exists or would you just hate God or what? because as an atheist you believe God is a fallacy because of logic, science and reason, but if God were real, then it would be illogical to deny it, right? would you form a rebellious anti-God coallition and gather up cronies just to spite God?

oh, and

youre implying that atheists hate god. i for do not hate god, because i do not believe in god. if there was a god i would believe in god.

Read Francis Schaeffer's writings.  His books contrast secular humanism with christianity, and he uses history to show the results of said contratsing world views.  he comes to some very fascinating conclusions.

I am not an atheist.

schaeffer sought to rationalize his belief in a god just like all christian apologists. god is said to be things that we can not know. e.g., perfection, truth, infinite, etc.... Believing in such things is one thing, trying to make them sound logical is a stretch. If you believe in god, why dont you start by explain what god is instead of attributing some abstract characteristics to him. One of the reasons i dont believe in god is because i am not sure what it is i am supposed to believe in.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Dude, when I was talking to the lawyer he was getting so psyched.  He was writing shit down as I just rambled on.  "I basically want to be shoved out on a pyre and torched.  We don't have to have my friends shoot flaming arrows at me as much as I want that.  I don't think I know any talented archers.  Basically find a way to have me set on fire in a lake and then I want there to be a 3 day party."

The dude was SO psyched and a week later he called me all bummed out, "I'm sorry sir, they said that the human body is made up of some things that could cause some serious problems with the ecosystem.  I am really sorry, is there anything else that could come close?" 
"No, but it's ok, just torch me and donate my shit to people who need it.  Can I still get the 3 day party?"
"Yes, that's not an issue."
"Ok, awesome.  We're good."

and the people at the tattoo-parlor told you that it wouldnt affect your life, huh? liars.

[ttching!]

Hail Cthulhu

[Narcissus]

You and the police are entitled to know, since I am going to spend the night near you, that I am both a Humanist and a Luddite. I may hold a Black Mass in the parking garage of the Best Western Hotel, if I can find a neo-conservative baby to sacrifice.

Do you know what a Humanist is? I am honorary president of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that functionless capacity. We Humanists try to behave well without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an afterlife. We serve as best we can the only abstraction with which we have any real familiarity, which is our community.

We had a memorial services for Isaac a few years back, and at one point I said, ''Isaac is up in Heaven now.'' It was the funniest thing I could have said to a group of Humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ''Kurt is up in Heaven now.'' That’s my favorite joke.

[Kab]

To claim knowledge about the existence of God one way or another is completely fucking asinine. Going with the more strict definition, if you're an atheist who claims to know there is no God, you're just as stupid and ignorant as the bible thumper claiming Jesus helped him get a bigger tax return this year.

I don't have any clue if there is a God or not. Science seems to be getting along very well without invoking the divine or having to resort to "God did it", but that doesn't mean there isn't something more to the world which we have not yet been able to discover through science. That being said, no human conception of God seems to me to be anywhere near adequate to explain both the facts of the world, that is scientifically verifiable facts, and deal with the more philosophical issues of life such as morality, and death.

I think agnostic is really the only reasonable stance on this issue of God. I'm quite convinced that all religions human beings have come up with are complete bullshit, but does that mean the concept it's self is false? I don't know and neither do any of you assholes, and you probably never will, so stop worrying about it and just accept that you will die one day, possibly very soon, and that there is no answer to the question of "what happens next?". 

[annoyedwithskating]

To claim knowledge about the existence of God one way or another is completely fucking asinine. Going with the more strict definition, if you're an atheist who claims to know there is no God, you're just as stupid and ignorant as the bible thumper claiming Jesus helped him get a bigger tax return this year.

I don't have any clue if there is a God or not. Science seems to be getting along very well without invoking the divine or having to resort to "God did it", but that doesn't mean there isn't something more to the world which we have not yet been able to discover through science. That being said, no human conception of God seems to me to be anywhere near adequate to explain both the facts of the world, that is scientifically verifiable facts, and deal with the more philosophical issues of life such as morality, and death.

I think agnostic is really the only reasonable stance on this issue of God. I'm quite convinced that all religions human beings have come up with are complete bullshit, but does that mean the concept it's self is false? I don't know and neither do any of you assholes, and you probably never will, so stop worrying about it and just accept that you will die one day, possibly very soon, and that there is no answer to the question of "what happens next?". 

i dont see how it is stupid to say that one believes there is no god. the bible says that god commanded the israelites to commit genocide on multiple occasions, he also said slavery was cool. i have no problem saying that as far as i can understand, there is no god who would command things like that. anything is possible, but its ok to take a stand up to a point. saying there is a god is dumb as people who believe in god can not define what that means. but if you give me a definition of a god, it is very reasonable to say that that particular definition is wrong. i do believe that it is possible that we were created by some other being, but i see no evidence for it and even if it did happen that way, i can not know. that i agree with you on.

[grimcity]

i dont see how it is stupid to say that one believes there is no god.

The majority of atheists (sans "positive atheists") wouldn't say they believe in no god, because belief and/or faith is something you have.  "I don't believe in (insert divine entity here)" is the default. Atheism is neutral.

Kind've related to my post earlier about  theists being atheists except for the god they believe in... it would be really hard on the brain to sit around trying to believe in the non existence of all the divine beings out in the world. Not having a belief is different than actively believing in the absence of something.