Help needed with essay on atheism

[Ace Otana]

Were you ever a theist?

No. I was never a theist. I never did believe in a god. Just couldn't be convinced of one.
Been atheist all my life.

[Garmston Ansell]

Were you ever a theist?

No. I was never a theist. I never did believe in a god. Just couldn't be convinced of one.
Been atheist all my life.

Are there any theists here?

[Ace Otana]

Are there any theists here?

There are a good few. They likes to hide sometimes.

[Garmston Ansell]

Are there any theists here?

There are a good few. They likes to hide sometimes.

It would be interesting to get their input too.

[Shell B]

So you don't see any patterns?

No, not really. There are some triggers for hostility against the religious. However, like I said, they are not triggers for all.

[atheistkid]

Were you ever a theist?

No. I was never a theist. I never did believe in a god. Just couldn't be convinced of one.
Been atheist all my life.

Are there any theists here?

Used to be, if that helps.

[Minimalist]

Is there a specific reason for the aggression?

Speaking only for myself, I am tired of their sanctimonious bullshit.

[theVOID]

I'm writing an essay about atheism and belief in god / religion. I'm not an atheist nor am I a believer in god. Basically I'm on the fence, and until now it's not something that I've given much thought to, hence why I feel the need to ask both sides. For the belief in god / religion part of the essay, I've begun asking believers and religious people about their views, and for the atheism part I'm here to ask about atheism.

So, any input will be appreciated. Thanks.

You are an atheist, anyone who does not believe in god(s) is.

Atheism is a rejection of claims made by theists about the existence of gods and those propositions that follow - The cause of the universe, the nature of reality, the existence of life after death etc - The rejection is most commonly on the basis that "none of these claims are supported by evidence" - A more detailed rejection is one such as "these claims fail to achieve epistemic justification" - They fail to reach achieve the support that would be required for any perfectly rational person to believe them.

For example, the "Personal revelation" touted by a great many believers as one of their core reasons for believing in a deity - An impartial and rational observer could not conclude for himself that a deity exists based on these revelations for a number of reasons, but the most obvious being that personal revelation is a standard of evidence that permits innumerable contradictory conclusions - One believer may receive a revelation from Jesus informing him of the truth of the trinity, another may receive a revelation of Allah telling him that he is the one true God - One person may have it revealed to him that it is okay to permit marriage amongst homosexuals and another may receive the opposite - Any standard of evidence put forth as an argument for the existence of a deity that yields such a great number of contradictory results simply cannot be taken seriously.

[Garmston Ansell]

Is there a specific reason for the aggression?

Speaking only for myself, I am tired of their sanctimonious bullshit.

Whose? Are you talking about all theists or someone specifically?

---

I'm writing an essay about atheism and belief in god / religion. I'm not an atheist nor am I a believer in god. Basically I'm on the fence, and until now it's not something that I've given much thought to, hence why I feel the need to ask both sides. For the belief in god / religion part of the essay, I've begun asking believers and religious people about their views, and for the atheism part I'm here to ask about atheism.

So, any input will be appreciated. Thanks.

You are an atheist, anyone who does not believe in god(s) is.

Atheism is a rejection of claims made by theists about the existence of gods and those propositions that follow - The cause of the universe, the nature of reality, the existence of life after death etc - The rejection is most commonly on the basis that "none of these claims are supported by evidence" - A more detailed rejection is one such as "these claims fail to achieve epistemic justification" - They fail to reach achieve the support that would be required for any perfectly rational person to believe them.

For example, the "Personal revelation" touted by a great many believers as one of their core reasons for believing in a deity - An impartial and rational observer could not conclude for himself that a deity exists based on these revelations for a number of reasons, but the most obvious being that personal revelation is a standard of evidence that permits innumerable contradictory conclusions - One believer may receive a revelation from Jesus informing him of the truth of the trinity, another may receive a revelation of Allah telling him that he is the one true God - One person may have it revealed to him that it is okay to permit marriage amongst homosexuals and another may receive the opposite - Any standard of evidence put forth as an argument for the existence of a deity that yields such a great number of contradictory results simply cannot be taken seriously.

I think perhaps brain chemistry may play a part although I also think sometimes it's just a matter of simply believing that it's likely that there's a god, or rejecting the notion, or in my case neither believing nor rejecting it. Do you think brain chemistry has anything to do with religious belief?

[downbeatplumb]

Lots of things have an input on religious belief: fear, ignorance, delusion, indoctrination,peer/authoritarian pressure and 'religious experiences' which can be mostly explained as missunderstanding brain chemistry, there is a thread on near death experiences here somewhere where someone has made this error.
These are just some of the reasons for peoples beliefs in the supernatural.
Sometimes people just want to believe insomething and look around for the bullshit that best suits them.