Atheism does not exist.
Why would this be?
perhaps because it’s basis is a paradox of sorts?
instead of resting on what does exist, they acert a belief that proposes what does not exist?
something like that. I’m having issues with words right now, but I think I’ve heard this sort of proposition before.
Due to universal interconnectivity at some level, all species have a collective head known as the Colletheis Genus. The common-ground and average spiritual force of the individual is pooled within the Colletheis Genus. Colletheis Maxis is the collective head of all thought and all feeling, which is of a far wider spiritual spectrum.
Overminds are the result of a human brain’s preception processes, whilst faced with an interconnected pool of living energy/thought. An overmind is a way of seeing the whole.
For the world’s greatest supercomputer to exist, there must be an interconnection of many smaller computers and processors. These could have been a system which pools spair CPU via the internet, which bares results as the core of the interconnected mass being super.
^
This factor and method also applies to the spair “CPU” that human minds give off. Some people’s unconscious desides to sacrifices a portion of its processing to the whole interconnected mind.
It is merely a convenient label that the religious and non believers attached to nonbelievers so that they can quite writing non believers so many times. It takes less space to write atheist then nonbeliever. Plus it is the opposite of theist.
A superior being may exist but, it is just a being like us. It may have created us but, then that would make us its kids, not servants.
As atheists would also have to conceed somewhere that a creature does exist for them to be able to deny its existence as a god.
If a god conceeds there are other gods and then states it is the only one that must be acknowledged, then it is pretty much the same as an atheist.
An atheist may be simply one whose faith and love are concentrated on the impersonal aspects of God. Simone Weil …
You’re quite a fan of this Simone Weil, aren’t you Nick? 
Theism is a bad guess
Atheism is a good guess
Non-belief is the best option
Yes, she towers above any other female philosopher I’ve read. Her heart and intellect are simply beyond any other woman philosopher I’ve read. She is the only philosopher I know that actually lived her philosophy which allowed her to “understand” her philosophy and profit from it in the real human sense.
Hehe…ok do you guys know where “atheism” came from? “a” meaning against/not, and “theo” meaning god - “against/no god” - they are affirming the nonexistence of god. but anyone who’s taken a logic course in college can tell you that is a logical fallacy. it’s just like saying that there is no white stone with black spots in ALL the galaxies of the universe - essentially that you have ultimate knowledge to say there is no one with ultimate knowledge. go figure.
but yes, i guess you can resort to agnosticism, in which all you have to prove is that you don’t know - pretty simple.
also, religion isn’t a bad guess. that’s a widely accepted idea, but take Christianity for example. we have better historical backing for Jesus than most historians have for Alexander the Great. not once has the Bible been proven wrong, plus the argument that it defies modern knowledge doesn’t discredit it AT ALL. it simply means there was a force/being/“GOD” that was above those laws and had the power to defy them. modern scientists simply, conveniently take the idea of God out of the picture, thus they claim it can’t happen that way.
Atheism is often a critic and rebelion towards organized religion, which has nothing to do with the real gods anyways.
Atheism is just a more selective, materialistic and critical form of spirituality, right?
ok did you just ignore what I said? try reading what I put next time, thanks
christianthinker: Hehe…ok do you guys know where “atheism” came from? “a” meaning against/not, and “theo” meaning god - “against/no god” - they are affirming the nonexistence of god. but anyone who’s taken a logic course in college can tell you that is a logical fallacy. it’s just like saying that there is no white stone with black spots in ALL the galaxies of the universe - essentially that you have ultimate knowledge to say there is no one with ultimate knowledge. go figure.
K: actually an atheist simply says, “there is no god”
There is no proof of god, there is no evidence of god.
CT: but yes, i guess you can resort to agnosticism, in which all you have to prove is that you don’t know - pretty simple.
K: agnosticism is someone who is wishy-washy.
CT: also, religion isn’t a bad guess. that’s a widely accepted idea, but take Christianity for example. we have better historical backing for Jesus than most historians have for Alexander the Great.
K: simply not true. The earliest writing that mentions jesus is
over 30 years after his death. We have writings done during
Alexander reign and some writings, (such as decrees on walls
from his reign) and writings on three continents during his reign."
CT: not once has the Bible been proven wrong, plus the argument that it defies modern knowledge doesn’t discredit it AT ALL. it simply means there was a force/being/“GOD” that was above those laws and had the power to defy them. modern scientists simply, conveniently take the idea of God out of the picture, thus they claim it can’t happen that way."
K: I won’t even waste time showing this is wrong. You can
as easily, indeed its easier to show how science explains
the universe far better then the bible does. All of Creation in 6 days?
I love bible literalist. There is so much in the bible they can’t defend
its like shooting fish in a barrel.
Kropotkin
thanks for actually quoting me - that’s a first so far. 
also, forgive my snideness - I try to admit my fallibility at the beginning, and I neglected to do so this time 
all of creation in 6 days. don’t underestimate God - unless you think He wouldn’t be able to do that. i would be very happy to know about other “problems” you see. thanks
on the subject of biblical writings vs. Alexander the Great, you have me there. but that doesn’t necessarily discredit them. thanks for the enlightenment anyway
i was taking the literal meaning of “atheism”, not the connotation - just thought I would let you know. besides, if they say “there is no god” - that’s exactly what I was talking about - it affirms the nonexistence of God
christianthinker: i was taking the literal meaning of “atheism”, not the connotation - just thought I would let you know. besides, if they say “there is no god” - that’s exactly what I was talking about - it affirms the nonexistence of God."
K: there is no god. you are adding words. There is no god.
It does not “affirm the nonexistence of god”, it says “there is no god”.
Just as there are no unicorns, no Santa Claus, and no Easter bunny,
there is no god.
Kropotkin
“affirm the nonexistence” and “there is no” - SAME THING!!! or please show me the difference - I’m dying to know
christianthinker: i was taking the literal meaning of “atheism”, not the connotation - just thought I would let you know. besides, if they say “there is no god” - that’s exactly what I was talking about - it affirms the nonexistence of God."
K: there is no god. you are adding words. There is no god.
It does not “affirm the nonexistence of god”, it says “there is no god”.
Just as there are no unicorns, no Santa Claus, and no Easter bunny,
there is no god.
K: when you say there is no easter bunny, do you say
“It affirms the nonexistence of the easter bunny”
or there is no santa claus, “it affirms the nonexistence of
santa claus” Would you? So why would you say
“It affirms the nonexistence of god”
Kropotkin
ok, LISTEN. I say that “extra-long” phrase just to show you exactly what you are doing as an atheist - do you know what “affirming” and “nonexistence” mean? or must I clarify my terms? you STILL HAVEN’T SHOWN ME ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PHRASES
I don’t read all of the stuffs.
sorry dan, didn’t mean to be so whiny. it’s just what you said seemed to be in ignorance or something of what I put. that’s the only reason i said that. i apologize.
No problem.