# Why do atheists insist that atheism is a 'non-belief'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281 "2010-12-15T20:50:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/281 "2010-12-18T18:36:51Z")
(bolding mine) > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Whether there’s an omnipotent entity, of course, requires me to form a belief about something that I have even less background knowledge of. I highly doubt such an entity exists, and I certainly see no reason to act as though such an entity exists, but my default position isn’t to say that **I believe no such entity exists.** You’ve moved the goalpost. No one here said believing god don’t exist is the default position. Look at the quote by **Der Trihs** that you replied to in post #273. Disbelief is not the same as belief in the converse. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/282 "2010-12-18T18:52:55Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Whether there’s an omnipotent entity, of course, requires me to form a belief about something that I have even less background knowledge of. I highly doubt such an entity exists, and I certainly see no reason to act as though such an entity exists, but my default position isn’t to say that I believe no such entity exists. The opposite of Belief is _not_ Belief. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/283 "2010-12-18T19:19:18Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > And yet a recurring theme is that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing else. Yes. > [@](#): > > Apparently, information has nothing to do with that conclusion. Nor do atheists require alternative explanations for those things that were explained from a theistic perspective. Nope, atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes. That is what atheism is. By the same token, if someone believes in an active god who cares about people, that person is a theist, no matter what his or her reasons might be for believing that, and no matter what that person believes their god wants them to do. Now if you’re arguing why a specific human become or remain atheists (or much more persuasively, why that person won’t commit to some particular religion), then the questions of evidence, explanations of the natural world and societal pressures become important. And those questions can only be handled in the context of the time that person lived in. None of the supernatural explanations of the universe I’ve ever seen have even been more than demonstrably false with the knowledge I have right now as a relatively educated person with some interest in biology, psychology, logic and physics. All the other “religious” world views I know of just make naive equivocations like “god equals love” or “god equals the universe”, which I might agree with were it not for the baggage of using the word “god”. The burden surely is not with me to prove that there are no gods. I can’t _know_ that. All I can do is look at the evidence that I can understand which so far has not lead me to conclude any supernatural thing is even _plausible_. But if any believer is so much surer than I am, I really do expect them to come up with more than ancient texts and a load of rubbish. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/284 "2010-12-18T19:23:54Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Whether there’s an omnipotent entity, of course, requires me to form a belief about something that I have even less background knowledge of. I highly doubt such an entity exists, and I certainly see no reason to act as though such an entity exists, but my default position isn’t to say that I believe no such entity exists. I have absolutely no knowledge or background about an invisible pink unicorn that lives in my garage, or a flying being in the sky made of spaghetti. Without any evidence whatsoever to the contrary, my position is to say that I believe no such entities exist. Would you characterize your position that you simply have no idea about such entities? I have just as much knowledge and background in an omnipotent being that matches the (granted contradictory descriptions) of the Abrahamic God. Everything I know about science and reality contradicts such a being. Without any evidence to the contrary, I believe that such a being doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/285 "2010-12-18T19:35:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Let’s see. I have a lot of experience with human beings, and with their naming conventions. I use this background knowledge of similar entities to move past the default position of “I don’t know” to move to a position of “I don’t believe so.” > > But the analogy is to an entity for which I lack all background knowledge. If we’re trying to include background knowledge in the analogy, we need to make that match, also. > > Is there a beetle in Poughkeepsie that makes clicking sounds while it eats decomposing fungal material? > > I don’t know. > > Whether there’s an omnipotent entity, of course, requires me to form a belief about something that I have even less background knowledge of. I highly doubt such an entity exists, and I certainly see no reason to act as though such an entity exists, but my default position isn’t to say that I believe no such entity exists. The problem is, if you accept that, then _that is true for anything at all that I can make up_ - as long as it’s defined correctly. And I can make it very specific - and irrefutable - too; there’s an invisible incorporal being called Pierre that loves me and hates you and will make you burn forever in a lake of fire after you die (and possibly do some more unpleasant things to your kids too, why not) unless you give me 20,000 dollars every year. I’m not asking you to state a _definite_ yes or no answer to its existence (hey, it _could_ be true), but is that being plausible at all? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/286 "2010-12-18T19:40:50Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Let’s see. I have a lot of experience with human beings, and with their naming conventions. I use this background knowledge of similar entities to move past the default position of “I don’t know” to move to a position of “I don’t believe so.” > > But the analogy is to an entity for which I lack all background knowledge. If someone is making the claim that a god is or does something, then I have plenty of background knowledge. You’re acting as if the information about whatever god is completely independent of information about the world and it isn’t. Just as you know how people tend to name children, I know how the world tends to work. So when you posit that there’s a god doing X or God doing Y, I can compare that with my experiences, what I know of physics, the evidence presented, etc. to form a conclusion: “No, I don’t believe it.” ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/287 "2010-12-18T19:48:25Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is there a beetle in Poughkeepsie that makes clicking sounds while it eats decomposing fungal material? > > I don’t know. I missed this in my first reply but I just wanted to address this quickly: First of all, there is a place called Poughkeepsie. Also, I know that beetles are abundant and I _think_ that some of them click, but in any case there are insects that click, and there are plenty of insects eating decomposing matter. So, if someone tells me of some beetle with your stated characteristics, I’d tend to believe what they’re saying is probably true. But that paragraph above means that this is not at all equivalent to a case where “I lack all background knowledge”. Not even close. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/288 "2010-12-18T20:11:42Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > (bolding mine) > > You’ve moved the goalpost. No one here said believing god don’t exist is the default position. Look at the quote by **Der Trihs** that you replied to in post #273. Disbelief is not the same as belief in the converse. Ah–I thought he was saying something similar to this statement of **SmartAlec’s** : > [@](#): > > Without any evidence to the contrary, I believe that such a being doesn’t exist. In other words, I thought he was using disbelief to mean a belief in the converse. If he’s simply using it to mean a lack of belief, then I agree with his statement. **Superfluous** , I have no belief in your extortionate Pierre, and I don’t concern myself with him whatsoever. That still doesn’t translate into a positive belief in his nonexistence. And y’all are right about the background knowledge issue; it’s very hard to come up with an appropriate analogy here, because the claims about God are explicitly claims about a being that, if existent, would work in ways contrary to normal daily experiences. The question is, broadly, “Is it possible that things exist that are contrary to your normal (for very broad definitions of ‘normal’) understanding of the cosmos?” I absolutely think that’s possible, although for the broadest definitions of “normal” I think it’s unlikely. When you ask me about any specific non-normal thing, I’m going to think it much more unlikely. But I still have no evidence against it. I just won’t worry about its existence. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/289 "2010-12-18T20:18:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And y’all are right about the background knowledge issue; it’s very hard to come up with an appropriate analogy here, because the claims about God are explicitly claims about a being that, if existent, would work in ways contrary to normal daily experiences. The question is, broadly, “Is it possible that things exist that are contrary to your normal (for very broad definitions of ‘normal’) understanding of the cosmos?” I absolutely think that’s possible, although for the broadest definitions of “normal” I think it’s unlikely. When you ask me about any specific non-normal thing, I’m going to think it much more unlikely. But I still have no evidence against it. I just won’t worry about its existence. I think the problem here is that the claims about god - at least, the ones that are still being used by relatively sane believers - are the few ones that are left over after the onslaught of critical examination of the evidence. In my opinion it’s pretty telling that all of the remaining common claims can’t or don’t have any evidence for them and are also constructed in such a way that they cannot be disproved. I’ve already given an example of how easy it is to come up with those kinds of claims. What I’m still waiting for is any reason to believe those kinds of claims are reasons to believe in anything at all. And why I wouldn’t think the person making those claims isn’t just abusing the gullible for his own “worldly” gains. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/290 "2010-12-18T21:35:02Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > That maybe true for you, but my society in the UK is, at the very best, apathetic regarding religion. Most people I know are atheist and the media and society pretty much secular. So the national anthem is now “A naturalisitic explanation save the Queen”? 😉 FWIW, according to the most recent [UK Census](http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp), 14.6% of people in England say that they have no religion, and 18.5 per cent in Wales. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter how intelligent someone is. If there is no evidence\* at all\* then the right thing to do is dismiss it out of hand. Sophisticated argument is all that theologians have. They twist words and concepts. They bulk out their arguments with tortured logic in the hope of making themselves seem smarter and their arguments cleverer. However, their theories are built on nothing. First, I didn’t mention theologians, so your argument is a straw man. Second, you say “If there is no evidence \* at all\*” but there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God/gods: 1. The Sun, which travels across the sky each day because of Ra, Helios, or Apollo, depending on what part of the world you are in. 2. Thunder, which is caused by Zeus, Thor, or Indra. 3. Rainbows, which were created by Yahweh after Noah’s Flood. 4. All of creation, created by the all-powerful Creator God. Are you denying that the Sun, thunder, rainbows, and all of creation exist? 😉 Oh, you have another explanation that doesn’t involve deities? Ah, so the evidence is the same but the explanation is different. Makes sense. > [@](#): > > but this is a rationale for the [courtiers reply](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php), which holds no weight at all I agree that the Courtier’s Reply holds no weight at all. To the uneducated, there is no evidence for heliocentrism, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, or a universe that is billions of years old. Actually, I’ve never actually seen any evidence for any of the above – I’ll only heard about it and read about it. Why do I believe what I hear and read? Perhaps because it makes sense to me. There are intelligent people who think that it makes sense to believe in the existence in God. Are they mistaken? I think so. But I don’t have a simple air-tight argument for why they are wrong. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Remember, people are born atheist and for millennia before recorded time they were atheist with regards to any of the abrahamic faiths. Remember what? Your post distorts the meaning of the word “atheist” in a way that is similar to how some theists play with the word “religion”. It would take quite a few more words to demonstrate to you that you are wrong. Instead, I’ll just say this: People are not born atheist. For millennia before recorded time people were not atheist. BTW, has anyone in this thread posted any dictionary definitions of “atheist”? Here are some: [ul] [li]someone who believes that God does not exist [Welcome to Macmillan Education Customer Support](http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/atheist%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Done) who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. [Home : Yahoo Academy Learning Center](http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheist%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Done) who believes that there is no deity [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist[/li][li]someone](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dsomeone) who believes that God or gods do not exist [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/atheist[/li][li]unbeliever](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/atheist%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dunbeliever) in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities [http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861587466[/li][/ul]](http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861587466%5B/li%5D%5B/ul%5D) ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/291 "2010-12-18T21:51:52Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > None of the supernatural explanations of the universe I’ve ever seen have even been more than demonstrably false with the knowledge I have right now as a relatively educated person with some interest in biology, psychology, logic and physics. But if you didn’t have knowledge of biology, psychology, logic and physics, would you still be an atheist? If yes, then how would explain what you observed in the world? Would you just say “I don’t know”? In the absence of any contradictory evidence, supernatural explanations are very persuasive, and have been the default for thousands of years. But, as the amount of contradictory evidence increased, and better naturalistic explanations were formulated, supernatural explanations became less persuasive, more flawed, and eventually useless … for some people. And some of those people became atheists. Is that reasonable or am I missing something? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/292 "2010-12-18T21:54:02Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > I think the problem here is that the claims about god - at least, the ones that are still being used by relatively sane believers - are the few ones that are left over after the onslaught of critical examination of the evidence. In my opinion it’s pretty telling that all of the remaining common claims can’t or don’t have any evidence for them and are also constructed in such a way that they cannot be disproved. I’ve already given an example of how easy it is to come up with those kinds of claims. What I’m still waiting for is any reason to believe those kinds of claims are reasons to believe in anything at all. And why I wouldn’t think the person making those claims isn’t just abusing the gullible for his own “worldly” gains. Certainly some people are frauds, no question. But there are some people who make the claims because they’re operating on faith, which appears to me to be a system of acting as though you believe in something until that act becomes indistinguishable from truth, out of a sense that it’s virtuous. Some people believe out of hope: they find the idea of a nontheistic cosmos to be appalling, perhaps in a way similar to how I find the idea of an all-powerful being who created this clusterfuck and keeps it going on purpose. And some people believe in a deity based on personal evidence: they believe they’ve spoken to a deity, or that certain events represent signs from that deity. I may find their evidence unpersuasive, but it’s entirely possible that if I’d had the same experiences as them (an experience, say, that seemed to be a communication from a deity), I might find them persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/293 "2010-12-18T22:12:01Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > But if you didn’t have knowledge of biology, psychology, logic and physics, would you still be an atheist? If yes, then how would explain what you observed in the world? Would you just say “I don’t know”? Yes, I would say I don’t know. I say so now regarding quantum physics and string theory. Even though I gather the evidence for quantum physics’ basic conclusions is pretty strong, I don’t understand it, though I have to take it in some way seriously because the conclusions are demonstrable. String theory as far as I understand is another beast and might be hardly scientific. Anyway, I care about what I _do_ know now, not about what would happen if I didn’t know it. > [@](#): > > In the absence of any contradictory evidence, supernatural explanations are very persuasive, and have been the default for thousands of years. But, as the amount of contradictory evidence increased, and better naturalistic explanations were formulated, supernatural explanations became less persuasive, more flawed, and eventually useless … for some people. And some of those people became atheists. Is that reasonable or am I missing something? That’s reasonable yes. There are plenty of psychological reasons why people ascribe intent to natural phenomena, and “need” some kind of naturalistic explanation before they give up on supernatural ones. But as far as I can see, supernatural causes have always turned out to be misinterpreted natural causes. And the only reason we’ve got vaguely deistic arguments today is because of the progress of natural science. Not the other way around. If we give up a naturalistic world view, anything goes. If we think the universe is somewhat predictable, we end up with an “ultimate cause” argument for a supernatural being. And if that’s the case, fine - though there’s still no evidence that that’s a valid argument - but in any case all human religions so far have been completely wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/294 "2010-12-18T22:29:38Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Certainly some people are frauds, no question. In my last sentence, I was mostly arguing against people who are proselytising, not general believers. > [@](#): > > But there are some people who make the claims because they’re operating on faith, which appears to me to be a system of acting as though you believe in something until that act becomes indistinguishable from truth, out of a sense that it’s virtuous. Or even, because it’s better to pretend to believe and promote belief for the benefit of society. I always get the feeling that Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher) does that when I hear him speak. I can sort of understand the feeling, but I think it’s just wrong, and very likely harmful in the long run. And it would still make you a fraud if you didn’t believe it yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Wadema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/34f0e0/32.png) [@Wadema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wadema)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/295 "2010-12-19T00:39:38Z")
Quite honestly, in arguments with religionists, it is easier to defend “having no belief in gods,” rather than “believing there are no gods.” I subscribe to both beliefs, myself, but would rather defend the former than the later. Here is one author’s take on it: **The atheist has nothing to prove.** \*As an atheist, I have no belief in god–not in the Jewish god, not in the Christian god, not in the Muslim god and not in the Hindu gods. When comparing myself to a religionist, I like to picture each of us holding an old mayonnaise jar. Perhaps when you were a child you poked a few holes in the lid of a mayonnaise jar and collected insects for observation. But in this instance, instead of putting insects in the jar, picture it full of religious beliefs. The religionist’s jar contains all of the beliefs of his religion. For example, a Catholic’s jar would include heaven and hell, a bearded man in the sky and his human son, virgin birth, walking on water, people rising from the dead, saints, miracles and the Pope as the infallible spokesperson for god. ``` My jar is empty. Often religionists feel atheists should prove there is no god. Perhaps because they have been in power for so long, they think they can set the terms of the debate. But atheists have no belief in god. My jar is empty. I have nothing to prove. All of the shouting in the world will not change this fact. It is the religionist who has a jar full of beliefs. And the religionist lacks facts to support his beliefs. So he labels them faith. Religion requires faith because it has no facts.* ``` from: [BornAtheist.com is for sale | HugeDomains](http://bornatheist.com/1.html) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/296 "2010-12-19T01:08:52Z")
I don’t go to church with other atheists. I don’t communicate over the internet or spend time reading atheist sites and arguments. If it weren’t for an occasional thread, I would never even think about it. So how does that qualify as a belief system? It is an absence of a system . Atheists don’t spend any time thinking about or doing anything about religion. Yes there are exceptions, but they don’t speak for the majority. There is no organization and nobody speaks for us. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/297 "2010-12-19T01:25:46Z")
> [@Wadema](#): > > ``` > My jar is empty. > > ``` I kinda disagree. I think the jar really holds your understanding of the underpinnings of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/298 "2010-12-19T01:41:01Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I kinda disagree. I think the jar really holds your understanding of the underpinnings of the universe. The jar the author wrote about doesn’t hold those things: > [@](#): > > But in this instance, instead of putting insects in the jar, picture it full of religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/299 "2010-12-19T02:35:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The easiest resolution to the apparent contradiction of God and the laws of physics is that God doesn’t exist. > > Or, to be accurate, the contradiction between descriptions of God and the laws of physics, hence my earlier point that we have no reason to believe any human religion contains an accurate description. I’m not talking about religion. As I’ve mentioned many times before, I approach these topics with the assumption that no religion in the history of man has gotten it right. The flavor of God is impossible to argue for and easy to dispel. And it’s a conflation many people in these types of threads do quite often. The only way to have an intelligent discussion about a Creator God is to NOT imbue him with any attributes other than “Creator”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/300 "2010-12-19T02:39:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > For one thing, because God as typically described - omnipotent - by definition defies _all_ possible, all conceivable laws of physics because if such laws applied he wouldn’t be omnipotent. I don’t think that’s quite right. Let’s say there are, as some have theorized, eleven dimensions. Let’s say, that if we had perfect knowledge, that man will _never_ be able to operate or access, or even fully comprehend five of them. But that the Creator can operate in each and any of them as you operate in three. If that is the case, then it makes sense to say that God is both omnipotent and that he doesn’t violate the _complete_ laws of physics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=16)