Characteristics of believers and Atheists

I see that atheists say that atheism is not a belief but negation of belief(in God). But I think atheists shows the property of believers and I think it right to see the properties and characteristics of a thing to identify what it is, rather than going into looks and labels. Seeing the chracteristics and properties of a thing I think is the scientific way of identifying, rather than seeing it’s looks or label.

These I think are characteristics of believers:


  1. Think, say or feel that others are wrong and we are right.

  2. rely or their idea is based on Absence of evidence of otherwise maybe true possibilities.

  3. Get angry over any such suggestion which somewhere try to say that their thinking or ideology is wrong. They probably fear such attempts, or become defensive, and sometimes offensive and attacking.

  4. They ridicule, make fun of contradictory ideas.

  5. They decline to think about conflicting and divergent possibility which point towards their idea or belief being wrong, and outrightly dismiss such ideas.

  6. They sometimes try to destroy opposing viewpoints.

  7. They generally have difficulty taking criticism of their beliefs, and consider it as an attack.

I think knowledgeable, balanced and logical people don’t do such things. These are mainly ignorant people’s qualities.

So what would Atheists say considering above points that atheism is a belief, or could be a belief for many? That means, unknowingly, many atheists follow atheism like a belief.

Lol :joy:… your “thinking” is an opinion (like assholes, everyone has one).

Non-belief. Withholding “belief”. Do you even understand what that means?

Nice try though…

Requiring evidence for an idea :bulb:- NOT accepting that idea because there is no evidence is not a “belief” …it is, uh, one of the lowest standards for making decisions.

If you don’t believe me (lol) just send me $100 and I’ll send you back $5,000.

Trust me.


Atheism isn’t a repudiation of belief. It is the repudiation of one very specific belief (the belief that god is real/exists).


  1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

It is not a belief, or an idea, or a claim, or an ideology. So your description of believers is entirely moot.


What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

It’s not, you’re contradicting its definition to make unevidenced generalizations about atheists.

Nothing any atheist says does or thinks changes the definition of atheism.

No it doesn’t, it means you have claimed they do. Though even were your ludicrous troll in fact true, it still wouldn’t alter the definition of atheism.

Theists come here all the time and do this, some even lie in their profiles, and pretend they’re atheists and agnostics. Make of that what you will.

I’m an atheist, because I don’t believe in any deity. I am also an agnostic about all claims that are unfalsifiable, though I still of course disbelieve them, why on earth would anyone believe any claim they admit they cannot know anything about?

1 Like
  1. Atheism is the "lack of belief in god claims. The reason behind atheism is a lack of evidence for the existence of god or gods. The time to believe a claim is when that claim has been supported by evidence. No support, no reason to believe the claim. This is not the same thing as “Believing a God does not exist.” Just look for my last few posts and you will find one where I question an ignorant Atheist making a blanket claim that “Gods do not exist.” This is a non-falsifiable claim. That religates it to the category of “inane” and “Unfounded assertion.” Nothing more. The statement, “No gods exist,” can not more be proved than the statement “God exists.” Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. The Burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Failure to meet the burden of proof results in the null hypothesis and no reason what so ever to believe the claim. Sorry you do not see this distinction.

  2. Possibility must be demonstrated. It is utterly and inanely absurd to assume absolutely anything is a possibility. Along with that idea is the presumption, “If you can’t disprove it, it stands as a possibility.” NO! There must be some reason to assume possibility, some evidence pointing to possibility. Some utility, explanatory power, usefulness that adds to our understanding of the universe around us that is beyond random chance. God hypotheses do none of this. Science has better things to do than run about and debunk every bullshit idea human beings pop up with. If scientists had to do that they would never get any real work done. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Until there is evidence there is no reason to consider the claim. That is just how it works.

  3. This is “Scientific ideology” and not Atheistic ideology. There is no atheistic ideology I am aware of. Therefore there is nothing to be wrong about. Now. if you are making the assertion that scientific ideology, The Scientific Method, and all it entails is “wrong,” well, where is your Nobel Prize?

Regardless of any limitations our current model of understanding the world has, it is the very best method we have for doing just that. At the same time, Science is extremely flexible, if you have a better system, why not present it. If your new system works better than what we are currently using, science will adopt it tomorrow. So what have you got?

Finally, what gets attacked by Atheists is inane bullshit like the crap you are writing. Atheism is not an ideology or belief system. You do not have a way to establish possibility better than the Scientific Method. Your post is pure hyperbolic bullshit from beginning to end and not worth the toilet paper to wipe it off the screen and flush it.

  1. No they do not make fun of contradictory ideas. They discuss contradictory ideas. They challenge contradictory ideas. They look for the fallacies in contradictory ideas. They weigh contradictory ideas to see if there is any truth value in them at all. And then, when those contradictory ideas are based on utter and complete nonsense; they say so. JUST LIKE THE BULLSHIT IN YOUR CURRENT POST.

  2. Dealt with in #4. The OP is not becoming repetitious/

  3. Opposing viewpoints do a fine job of destroying themselves. We merely point to the fallacious inconsistencies. Those viewpoints that can not stand against critical inquiry are not worth holding as true, This is called “Independent Verification.” You may know it as “Peer Review.” The fact that your ideas are rejected, should be telling you something. Even Christian apologists update their arguments. Look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The original argument was “Everything has a cause.” Well that implied God must also have a cause so the Christians changed it to… “Everything that came into existence had a cause.” Now God does not have to come into existence. The argument is still fallacious as ever but you can, at least, give the Christians points for trying.

  4. What beliefs are you referencing? Please create a list of Atheist beliefs. I would really like to see it. If you are talking about my personal beliefs. Feel free to attack them. I will be more than happy to consider your position, return to the facts that I can find and adjust my position based on any new information you can provide. My understanding of “belief” is that it is on a scale from 0 to 100. Nothing can be believed 100%. That would be pathological. We can not escape hard solipsism. Much of what we know must be accepted out of utility and not out of underlying truth claims. “The laws of logic for example.”

You have gone no where near demonstrating atheism is a belief; You have confounded scientific principles of methodology with Atheism. Not all atheists are scientifically minded. There are atheists that believe in souls, magical energy like ki or chakras, pyramid power, dreams, past lives, reincarnation, or other bullshit that is asserted without proper scientific evidence. All you have demonstrated is that you clearly have no understanding at all as to what Atheism is.

Let me help… A = Without + Theism = Belief in a god or gods. A+theism = Atheism = a lack of belief in god or gods. (ATHEISTS ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN GODS) That’s it. Period. Nothing more. The end. Finished. It’s that fucking simple!

1 Like

@ Phoenix

The seven characteristics you listed would fit any human grouping concerning any human activity, like fans of football clubs, soldiers of opposing armies, political zealots.
And they could apply to ignorant or intolerant theists and atheists alike.

However I suggest an eighth characteristic which applies to both ignorant and knowledgeable theists but more importantly highlights a basic and important difference that clearly separates theists and atheists.

  1. All theists, ignorant and knowledgeable are gnostics.

Most will plead special knowledge about the nature, characteristics, intentions and expectations of their ineffable gods through scripture and revelation or through philosophical rationalisations.
Other theists will claim their god can’t be known in terms of secular knowledge (ie science in particular) and insist on the priority of their faith, but they will still insist on applying special knowledge, (unavailable to atheists unless they participate in exclusive and specific transformative rites of passage) gleaned from scripture, revelation or apologetic logic which informs them of the existence and purposes of their god.

Again, knowledgeable atheists only reject the theist claims of the existence of gods and the veracity of their unevidenced, unsubstantiated beliefs.

There are atheists who will make rash claims like ‘all religions are evil’ but these have more to do with indignation, intolerance, misinformation and lack of knowledge rather than with faith or revelation or rationalisations.

I can’t comment on your claim about ‘many’ atheists following atheism as belief. However it is not the impression I have after close association with atheists from many nations for over thirty years. All were intelligent and informed enough to acknowledge the impossibility of proving ‘God’ in or out of existence by whatever means chosen. Unless you could provide some evidence to support your assertion, I am forced take the view that neither you or I could know off hand with any real authority.

1 Like


your “thinking” is an opinion

You mean the listed characteristics can also be shown by knowledgeable or even confused people?

Non-belief. Withholding “belief”. Do you even understand what that means?

Yes, I understand what it means, but a person holding such position would show confused or unsure behavior, and would not show the listed behavior. But what I see is that most atheists shows the behavior which seems like they KNOW and claim with 100% certainty that “God don’t exist”. 100 or 500% certainty is believer’s characteristics. Knowledgeable or unsure people don’t show that they are 100% certain. No, never. They show curious or confused behavior.

Requiring evidence for an idea :bulb:- NOT accepting that idea because there is no evidence is not a “belief” …it is, uh, one of the lowest standards for making decisions.

If it is not a belief then what it is? Is it a knowledge? The opposite of belief is knowledge in real sense. It’s not non-belief. Non-belief is as much a belief as a belief itself, just like the opposite of Truth is as much a truth.

The opposite of profound truth is another profound truth - Niels Bohr


Atheism isn’t a repudiation of belief. It is the repudiation of one very specific belief (the belief that god is real/exists).

Of course, but it’s not knowledge. In existential sense repudiation of belief in God works as much as non-belief in God. Means behavior will be same for non-believers as well, just like of believers. There’s where my confusion lies, or of every theist’s confusion lies, just they have difficulty expressing their confusion.

Please read the last for Whitefire13.


It is not a belief, or an idea, or a claim, or an ideology. So your description of believers is entirely moot.

No, it’s not entirely moot. Most atheists behave like a believer. If you behave like a believer, then you are a believer.

##Duck Test

If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then it is a duck. Isn’t it right? This is how science identify things.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

It’s for another thread, so please wait for such a thread. Till then, define evidence. What exactly you mean by evidence? Is it what you can see, OR you can see it’s effects for which something can be considered as cause, OR is it what you have a explanation for about it’s physical inner mechanism that how does it work, OR all of them? Does your definition of “evidence” include getting confused about some incidents, events or circumstances for which you don’t have an explanation, and theists can’t ignore such things, but you ignore it saying that it is hoax, lies, hallucination, which is certainly not an argument many a times?


It’s not, you’re contradicting its definition to make unevidenced generalizations about atheists.

Nothing any atheist says does or thinks changes the definition of atheism.

I agree that I am generalizing about atheists, but what I mean is “most atheists” and not all. I generalize when most in a group are similar.

Do you understand that it’s right to see the behavior and characteristics of something to identify what exactly it is?

See, in existential sense, opposite of belief is non-belief which is just another kind of belief. But in realistic or practical sense opposite of belief is knowledge, which atheism is certainly not.

Opposite of profound truth is another profound truth - Niels Bohr. Even if it called as lies or untruth, it is still a truth, in existential sense. That means lies exists just like truth exists. It just that lies or untruth behave differently and have different characteristics than the truth, in realistic and practical sense.

No it doesn’t, it means you have claimed they do. Though even were your ludicrous troll in fact true, it still wouldn’t alter the definition of atheism.

Firstly, atheists have characteristics and behavior like of theists, so it is right to say that atheists follow atheism like a belief, as far as what I can understand right now.

Secondly, just because someone is irritating, upsetting, inflammatory, uncomfortable, extraneous doesn’t mean he is a troll. Truth can have these properties as well. I am just a speaker of truth, maybe truth itself is a troll, but I am not. So, please don’t call me a troll. I am not trolling you. I am just confused or curious, for which I searching an answer.

@Phoenix101 Funny - Cog went through your list.

What the fuck are you on about? YOU may need “black/white” thinking (whether true or not) BUT not everyone needs the comfy blanket of “being sure”.

You didn’t answer my question. Are you sending me $100?

A gum ball machine filled. Even or odd? Pick one. Are you sure?

I’m not. Not until the machine is taken apart and the gum is counted. Not confused :woman_shrugging:t2: - not arrogant- not claiming knowledge for something I have NO evidence to believe.

If you say even or odd - MY with-holding an answer is NOT the opposite of YOUR answer, it’s just saying “I don’t know”.

YOU need to do the convincing.

Horseshit. You’re a theist. My bet (or level of confidence) is YOU personally only engage with other theists and interact with atheists on a minor level or forums or YouTube videos (where theists present “atheist” beliefs - hahahaha).

Atheists, for the umpteenth time is a person who does not or withholds BELEIF in god/s.

Knowledge is a whole other ballgame. Do YOU know god/deity exists?

If not, you are an agnostic/theist.

Yes it is entirely moot, because atheism is not a belief, an ideology, a claim, a world view, or an idea. Even if any number of atheists hold beliefs, including believing a deity does not exist.

Atheism, and atheist, are not the same thing, why can’t you grasp this simple fact? Is it deliberate?

No they don’t, though theists often tout that lie. However even were this true it still wouldn’t make atheism a belief, just check a dictionary ffs.

You’re a believer if you hold a belief, an atheist can hold any number of beliefs, and be a believer, as long as they don’t believe in any deity or deities. This doesn’t change the meaning of atheism, which is not a belief, you’re simply wrong, and again a simple Google search for its definition proves your claim wrong.

Quelle surprise, the dishonest theist, pretending to be an agnostic, and lying about the definition of atheism, hasn’t the integrity to admit they cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.

It’s in the dictionary as is the word objective. I’m not a fucking English teacher go educate yourself.

No indeed, theists love to make claims for things they can’t explain. It’s called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Look that up as well.

Evidence your claim please, as I’ll need something more than your unevidenced assertion. Though of course this still doesn’t make atheism a belief, as I’ve explained, and you’ve ignored. You seem to be very closed minded on this.

No, because atheist and atheism are not the fucking same, how hard is that to understand?

Seriously, reread that ffs.

Oh dear fucking god, of course it’s not, opposite of belief is non belief, knowledge is the opposite of ignorance. These are very simple word definitions you can’t grasp, or are too lazy to look up yourself.

I don’t believe you, as you’ve offered naught but your subjective opinion about most atheists, I seriously doubt you know more atheists than I do, let alone most fucking atheists, which is absurdly dishonest hyperbole, but it is still moot, as what atheists believe doesn’t change the definition of atheism, which is not a belief.

Straw man fallacy, as I made no such claim. Though its amusing you don’t like me inferring things about you based on the content of your posts, but have no problem falsely defining atheism as a belief without presenting any evidence.

If that were true you’d simply Google the dictionary definition of atheism, and see your claim it is a belief is erroneous.

I’ve seen too many theists tout the same lie on here to take anyone who uses it seriously. Yet I still took the time to explain why you were wrong, but only once, if you’re too lazy to look up the definition, or too dishonest to accept it’s definition which doesn’t support your agenda to misrepresent atheism, and atheists then why should anyone here care what you think?

Nope, wrong again, I am certain I don’t believe any deity exists. If theists posit an unfalsifiable concept with a god claim I am an agnostic about such claims, but remain an atheists.

What’s confusing you there?

The lack or absence of that belief. Just how many times do you need this explained? Disbelieving a claim does not involve a contrary claim. Thus atheism is not a belief.

Look up at the stars, there are a lot of them. If I tell you that I have counted them all and the total number of stars is even, do you believe me?

Of course you say “No I do not believe you.” at this point. As any sane person would.

“Oh, so you have a belief that they are odd?” I assert. No, I did not say that. I simply have a lack of belief in your assertion that the number of stars is even. I have seen no evidence for such a claim. I am not making an assertion that they are odd. I have not even called you a liar. All I have done is say that I do not believe you. Perhaps you could convince me with some good evidence. Atheism is the NULL HYPOTHEISIS. It is the position of not believing the claim until evidence warrants such belief. It’s just that simple.

I am not saying the number of stars is odd. I am not saying anything at all about the stars. I am only asserting that I do not believe your claim,.


This is a good reply Cognostic. When I was in philosophy forums many year ago I was used to refute the claim in point to point manner. It makes things clear.

But I think you didn’t get the crux of my reasoning. My reasoning is based on overall or aggregate behavior of believers and how they behave i.e. properties and characteristics, as well as little philosophy. It is not exactly about their behavior separately.

Let me make this more clear about the similarities between behaviors theists and atheists.

  1. Theism is beliefs in God claims and the actual reason behind theism is lack of evidence of non-existence of God or gods. Theists have support to believe in God and that support is miracles, mysterious occurrences and supernaturals and personal experience also. It’s just that atheists simply ignore it, saying such things never actually happens, or it’s a lie. Ignoring with outright dismissal is not even an argument. So theist’s support comes from considering such things, while atheist’s support comes from ignoring such things. You said that time to believe in claim is when it is supported by evidence, but in my opinion belief cease to exist when you get the evidence because now you have a knowledge and you need not to believe any further. Beliefs comes with no knowledge or lack of evidence. You mentioned an atheist of forum whom you questioned for making claim that"God don’t exist". I think such ignorant are always in majority in any group, and intelligent people are always in minority. I think it’s sensible to say so than the vice versa. There’s no survey in my support that ignorant atheists are majority, but just an assumption that ignorants are always in majority, which I think is sensible assumption. And as such, it becomes the position of claiming that “we are right and you are wrong”. It’s necessary to consider the majority because at last majority triumph and group’s behavior will be according to majority.

  2. “Possibility must be demonstrated”, this also is the argument of the theists for other’s beliefs but what they do is they ignore the things which point towards the possibility. they suddenly start to argue like a physicist that there’s no evidence of such possibility, but in case of their own belief they talk like an ignorant. For example, monotheist will say polytheist to demonstrate there are more than one God, and polytheist will say to demonstrate the possibility of only one God, but what they do is they ignore such things that point towards it. Theists believe in saints, who do miracles, fulfill wishes etc. These things is supposed to be done by God. But if saints do so then saints are God, and there are many saints. So there are many gods. But monotheist will ignore this, and say there’s no such things as many gods. Atheists do the same thing, that they ignore things which shows the possibility and say there’s lack of evidence of any such thing.

  3. I don’t understand your reply in third point.

  4. Of course atheists make fun of contradictory ideas like reincarnation, NDE, possession, souls etc. They laugh on it and turn a blind eye. So do the theists if it’s contradictory to their beliefs.

  5. Atheists simply decline to think about above mentioned things of pt. no. 4 saying that it is nonsense, it makes no sense, bullshit, horseshit, crap etc. So do the theists if it points towards their ideology being wrong.

  6. Opposing viewpoints do a fine job of destroying themselves. We merely point to the fallacious inconsistencies. So do the theists. When Muslims say Allah is God because Quran say so, Quran is right because Muhammad say so, and Muhammad is messenger of God because Allah say so, then Christian will point of this being a circular reasoning, and it’s fallacious. So theists also try to destroy opposing viewpoints, sometimes by pointing to fallacies, and sometimes by moral compass. So do the atheists.

  7. I think atheist are like believers and their main belief is “God do not exist”. However there’s no set ideology in atheism but still many atheists (not all) don’t like anything which point towards existence of God, like intelligent design, miracles, supernaturals etc. So when someone talk about these things many atheists seem to behave as if someone attacking their beliefs. It is same for theists also, like if I start talking about reincarnation then whose beliefs are incompatible with it will start talking like physicist, and for them it is nonsense.

So atheists need to be realistically opposite of theists and not just literally and existentially, otherwise it’ll be the same. It will be regressive to some kind of knowledge and will spread stupidity, just like theism. Suppose in future if atheism will rule, but atheists will do the unnecessary destruction, unnecessary killing, crime, immorality, just like theists then what will be the difference? To be creative you need to contained, balanced and behave like a knowledgeable people, which I think atheists aren’t generally.

Hahahaha … bullshit.

That’s because you’re “projecting”…

1 Like

This post seems to imply that opposites come in the following varieties:

  1. realistically opposite
  2. literally opposite
  3. existentially opposite

@Phoenix101 are there any more that I missed?

Also, could you explain, in detail, the difference between these; I mean, why you needed to address them separately?

Or are these just weasel words, so I’m barking up the wrong tree?

1 Like


Like as you know that good and evil are literally opposites i.e. they mean negation of each other.

And you also know that both good and evil exist. So they are opposites but both exists. It’s not like one exists and the other is just a non-existence of the first. So when someone said that the opposite of profound truth is another profound truth, he meant it in existential sense. Means both exists, and whatever exists is part of whole truth. Otherwise in literal sense opposite of Truth is lie, deception, illussion.

By realistically opposite I mean they are opposites in characteristics, properties, behavior, and bring about opposite outcome. Good and evil are also realistically opposites.

But atheism don’t seem to be realistically opposite of theism, but only literal and existential. As such I think atheism will not bring much different outcome than the theism. It may improve things but will not change.

Really? That’s news to me. Define your idea of good and evil.

1 Like

On one hand: your talk about negation seems like it must be a metaphor.

But on the other hand: you said “literally”.

Help me out here.

1 Like