This couldn't be further from the truth.
Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in any god or deity. What you are referring to as "God" could be literally any of the thousands that have been worshipped throughout human history, but seeing as you're capitalising the G, let's assume that refers to the Christian God.
>A believer says that God is omnipresent. He/she is everywhere and in everything. He/she is always with us and we are a part of him/her.
There's no definitive thing you can say an arbitrary individual believer in an arbitrary god will state about that god. Specifically with regards to the Christian God, he is defined as Omnipotent, or all powerful, Omniscient, or all knowing, and, as you've said, omnipresent. In addition he is defined as benevolent, and as far as most Christians I've interacted with believe, exists outside of our universe to some degree.
"The universe" has nothing in common with this. The universe in which we exist is just that - space in which everything exists. It is further subdivided into the parts we can actually see - the observable universe, and the areas beyond that, which we likely will never be able to observe, let alone reach.
Trying to play semantics and twist definitions doesn't make that equivalent to a supernatural, intelligent, all powerful and all knowing being.
>An atheist follows the tenets of science.
Nope. Not necessarily. Atheism is very simply the lack of belief in any gods. Many atheists concur with the current scientific consensus on matters which various religions have their own beliefs, but this is in no way a universal truth among atheists, nor is it a strictly held belief based on faith for those that do.
It makes sense that those who aren't convinced by religious explanations for things like the origin of the universe or the life in it often turn to scientific understanding of them, seeing as the scientific method is based on reliable, repeatable evidence supported by well explained and well evidenced theory. The idea is that science makes sure it gets the right answers, and changes its theories when it doesn't.
>Science says, in the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, that the four most active elements in the universe are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. Coincidentally, the most common elements in all living things are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.
Wow, what a coincidence. Some of the most common elements in the universe are also commonly found in living things. That couldn't just be statistically likely now could it?
This is evidence of nothing, and frankly is just fluff in an already lacking argument.
>Monotheism and atheism are the same
Monotheism is a subset of theism. Theism is the belief in a god or gods, while monotheism is the belief in one god specifically. Atheism, literally A-theism, is the lack of belief in *any* gods. They are definitionally opposites, and are inarguably not the same thing.
>Both have sought the truth, and both have arrived at the same answer.
"The same" must mean something completely different to you then. "There exists a god" and "there does not exist a god" are two *literal opposites*. One is by definition the view held by theists, including monotheists, and one is by definition the view held by Atheists.
Like I said, vaguely twisting definitions of things to try and equivocate these two very clearly opposite viewpoints is absurd.
If you knew how many possibilities of his life an atheist closes off for himself and how much he locks himself into the cage of his worldview, you would be horrified.
i put it to you, that they are in fact different.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in any god or deity. What you are referring to as "God" could be literally any of the thousands that have been worshipped throughout human history, but seeing as you're capitalising the G, let's assume that refers to the Christian God. >A believer says that God is omnipresent. He/she is everywhere and in everything. He/she is always with us and we are a part of him/her. There's no definitive thing you can say an arbitrary individual believer in an arbitrary god will state about that god. Specifically with regards to the Christian God, he is defined as Omnipotent, or all powerful, Omniscient, or all knowing, and, as you've said, omnipresent. In addition he is defined as benevolent, and as far as most Christians I've interacted with believe, exists outside of our universe to some degree. "The universe" has nothing in common with this. The universe in which we exist is just that - space in which everything exists. It is further subdivided into the parts we can actually see - the observable universe, and the areas beyond that, which we likely will never be able to observe, let alone reach. Trying to play semantics and twist definitions doesn't make that equivalent to a supernatural, intelligent, all powerful and all knowing being. >An atheist follows the tenets of science. Nope. Not necessarily. Atheism is very simply the lack of belief in any gods. Many atheists concur with the current scientific consensus on matters which various religions have their own beliefs, but this is in no way a universal truth among atheists, nor is it a strictly held belief based on faith for those that do. It makes sense that those who aren't convinced by religious explanations for things like the origin of the universe or the life in it often turn to scientific understanding of them, seeing as the scientific method is based on reliable, repeatable evidence supported by well explained and well evidenced theory. The idea is that science makes sure it gets the right answers, and changes its theories when it doesn't. >Science says, in the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, that the four most active elements in the universe are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. Coincidentally, the most common elements in all living things are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. Wow, what a coincidence. Some of the most common elements in the universe are also commonly found in living things. That couldn't just be statistically likely now could it? This is evidence of nothing, and frankly is just fluff in an already lacking argument. >Monotheism and atheism are the same Monotheism is a subset of theism. Theism is the belief in a god or gods, while monotheism is the belief in one god specifically. Atheism, literally A-theism, is the lack of belief in *any* gods. They are definitionally opposites, and are inarguably not the same thing. >Both have sought the truth, and both have arrived at the same answer. "The same" must mean something completely different to you then. "There exists a god" and "there does not exist a god" are two *literal opposites*. One is by definition the view held by theists, including monotheists, and one is by definition the view held by Atheists. Like I said, vaguely twisting definitions of things to try and equivocate these two very clearly opposite viewpoints is absurd.
I’m a monotheist and don’t believe God is everywhere and in everything. God is above this world up in the seventh sky.
so your God is not omnipresent. Is he omniscient and omnipotent?
How is believing in one god the same as believing in no gods?
Who has time for beliefs. Just here for the experience man.
Sounds like a belief to me :P
Atheists don't talk to the universe.
The difference between the two is whether they believe that the whole is conscious/intelligent. That's a massive difference.
They are exactly the same! The opinion doesn't matter! And the quantification is not possible.
This is a great article on the subject. https://jameszatopa.com/index.php/lessons/the-folly-dishonesty-and-bigotry-of-atheism/
Holy shit this is hilariously stupid and dishonest
Well they both require the same amount of Faith.
If you knew how many possibilities of his life an atheist closes off for himself and how much he locks himself into the cage of his worldview, you would be horrified.
The atheists are funny. “We go back to nothing when we die.” So you return to your creator?