Is Atheism mature?

[theapprentice]

I respect the Atheist and can Co-exist with a Christian, but what I dont like is this "You are either a Christian or an Atheist." There are many other options. I myself am New Age Agnostic. Agnostics are generally not arrogant like the Christians (who claim to be better than other people because they read the bible) or Atheists (who claim to be more intelligent because they dont believe in God)

[CommunistZed]

Im A Buddhist, so this Discussion isn't really in my hands, but a lot of my family members and relatives are Christian, and my mom's told me that you gotta believe in something, be it god, Buddha, a higher power, etc. And Whether or not you think your god exists or not, you should at least believe in SOMETHING. So I disagree, Atheism Isn't a Mark of Maturity.

[Omega]

I respect the Atheist and can Co-exist with a Christian, but what I dont like is this "You are either a Christian or an Atheist." There are many other options. I myself am New Age Agnostic. Agnostics are generally not arrogant like the Christians (who claim to be better than other people because they read the bible) or Atheists (who claim to be more intelligent because they dont believe in God)

I disagree with your generalizations of Atheists and Christians, most do not act like that and if I was to judge a group of a few vocal members like you seem to have some I would have to assume New Age Agnostics are known for superiority complexes.

[CommunistZed]

I respect the Atheist and can Co-exist with a Christian, but what I dont like is this "You are either a Christian or an Atheist." There are many other options. I myself am New Age Agnostic. Agnostics are generally not arrogant like the Christians (who claim to be better than other people because they read the bible) or Atheists (who claim to be more intelligent because they dont believe in God)

You sir, Are Absolutely Correct, Just cause you're not Christian doesn't mean you're automatically Atheist, and Vice-Versa.

[micro horse]

Im A Buddhist, so this Discussion isn't really in my hands, but a lot of my family members and relatives are Christian, and my mom's told me that you gotta believe in something, be it god, Buddha, a higher power, etc. And Whether or not you think your god exists or not, you should at least believe in SOMETHING. So I disagree, Atheism Isn't a Mark of Maturity.

Then if you have to believe in something, believe in yourself for you know that you are real. If you can't believe in yourself then what's the point of living?

[CommunistZed]

Then if you have to believe in something, believe in yourself for you know that you are real. If you can't believe in yourself then what's the point of living?

Haha, Witty Retort! Good One

[generaldisaster]

Atheism isn't mature.

There are some mature atheists. There are also some immature atheists. To use a suitably religious quote, 'Hate the sin, not the sinner'. I'm a Christian, but I respect an athiest's lack of belief just as much I would a Muslim, a Zorarastian, a Rastafarian or a Shintoist.

There are also some mature and immature thiests; a religion does not make a person - if someone's an immature dick about their religion, it's because THEY ARE AN IMMATURE DICK.

[Aorigami]

There are also some mature and immature thiests; a religion does not make a person - if someone's an immature dick about their religion, it's because THEY ARE AN IMMATURE DICK.

^This.

[Scribz]

Who fucking cares?

The beliefs you have isn't what makes you mature/immature. It’s the reason behind those beliefs and the ways people try to show-case their beliefs is what makes them immature. The whole "I grew up in a Christian house, but the more I grew up and the more I learned, the more I began to question it, and now I am an atheist." is not an immature reason to be an atheist. With the internet/ social networking sites bringing exposure to other ways of thinking I feel that the young teenager is actually showing signs of maturity by questioning the rights and beliefs he/she was brought up in. The problem arises that because the Young teenager is in fact YOUNG they have inexperience going about their questions and the search for their answers, combine that with the unpleasantness of hormones which the young teenager has to deal with and they can end up being abrasive or overly-passionate with their questioning.

Labeling them as "immature" is simply a way for one to demean and take away the value of the search for answers. One person calling another "immature" is just another way of saying "Stop questioning, it doesn't matter". It's a very de-motivational thing to say to a youngin because it’s a argument they can't win. They are technically "immature" as their hormones haven't even balanced themselves out yet.

The sad thing is that if said enough times, most will stop questioning and never question anything again. Even the most rebellious teen can be molded into a clean little brown shirt. And when they become the majority and back bone of whatever amazing, democratic, awesome country you come from. You'll be horrified when they don't question their government or their so called representatives or their police force or their school systems. They'll bend backwards to an authority who is supposed to bow to the people. You'll suffer dreadfully from it and you'll wonder how this generation could let this happen. And you won't even realize that you did it, you implanted in their minds at an impressionable age that questions were meaningless.

So fuck maturity. I wish more people were immature, I wish more people got in other people's faces and had a heated discussion, I wish for people to question every thing they think is horseshit. But what I wish most of all is that people gave a better argument than "You're just immature", for it's merely the sign of a man who is too lazy to argue.

Ahem.

[Darth]

I don't think it's necessarily mature to be an atheist. If you went unexposed to the existence of a deity through your adolescence, and were taught the fundamental sciences that debunk the existence of a deity, it was not maturity that brought you to the conclusion that god does not exist. It was simply the way you were raised.

I do believe, however, that it's immature to purposely disregard the massive scientific discoveries of the last thousand years and continue to insist that your god exists.

Any scientist worth his salt would point out that there is no science that debunks the existence of a deity, because science and God have no business together. The question of God is not a question answered by science, nor is it a question science is even equipped to answer by its very design. Science is simply the testing and categorizing of knowledge in an attempt to understand the world around us. Because God cannot be tested, proven, disproven, or studied, it does not fall into the purview of science anymore than the notion of a soul. That fact does not denote its lack of existence, however. It simply means that it does not fit into the realm of science.


The notion of "atheistic science" has only become really popular lately, but science is not inherently atheistic or theistic; it's simply a method to gathering, testing, and expanding knowledge. The fact is, however, that the pursuit of science and the knowledge it gives us, and the notion of religious belief, are actually quite mutually exclusive areas of thought. They do not intersect; one deals with the material world, one deals expressly with things beyond it. Apples and oranges. Belief in God does not necessitate a disbelief in scientific discovery. Science in and of itself does nothing to debunk God. God has no place in science, and what I mean by that is that science does nothing, and has no reason to, question God, God's existence, or his/her/its nonexistence. Science merely studies, measures, and tries to explain the material universe around us.

A scientists can believe whatever he likes; it has no impact on his pursuit of scientific discovery because there's nothing to discover that will expressly disprove his belief in a higher being. God and science go to different coffee shops.

Ergo, a person can "insist" that their god exists if they choose to believe that; science does absolutely nothing to hinder or aid in the belief of a god. What is immature, is purposefully disregarding what science actually does and then insisting that god does not exist on the basis of a notion that is not designed nor equipped to grapple the concept of "god" in the first place. That is a subversion of science's purpose and nature, and a poor one at that.

Point being, science and religion are mutually exclusive areas of thought. They don't have any overlap; one is the study of the material world, the other is focused on the notion of things expressly beyond the material. People who tout science as "debunking" religion are often as close-minded and dogmatic as the theists they claim to be set against. Two sides of the same coin.

I, personally, don't care much either way as to whether or not a god exists. Either it does or it doesn't, it's not any real concern of mine. I support science and the pursuit of knowledge, and I understand what science is and isn't. It is a tool through which we can expand our understanding of the cosmos. It is not a tool designed to try and answer questions about God. That is for theologists and philosophers. Scientists are concerned with information that can be readily measured, tested, and experimented with. Applying science to the question of God is about as useful as a pair of fake tits on a hog; people are better off using science for its actual purpose, being the expansion of our knowledge regarding the material universe.