take this simple test - you might be an atheist if . ..

• you visit the doctor for treatment, rather than just praying that the funny lump which has been growing rapidly will go away on its own
• you try to drive safely on the highway, rather than assuming its gods will whether or not you have an accident
• you see the connection between education, sobriety, and success . .. rather than piety.
• you've never personally stoned anyone to death for committing a mortal sin
• you are skeptical of the premise that god put fake fossils of dinosaurs on earth to test our faith
• you believe that a tsunami devastating a tropical island was probably freak weather, and not gods judgement on their religion
• you have loaned or borrowed money at interest
• inquisitions, crusades, jihads, and burning witches at the stake hold little interest for you
• you understand that you're not really partaking of human blood and flesh during communion
• you don't think the length of your beard has any bearing on whether god would approve of your life
• you accept that fact that the 99% of people who don't share your beliefs aren't going to burn in hell for all eternity, despite what your religious text says

I guess I fail.

Bummer :[

Just in case you need some extra Unbeliver points.

• you say, when asked, that you don't believe in deities, because you understand that Hindus don't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Moslem God, either.
• the idea of "sin" makes no sense, because if deities REALLY didn't want us doing things, it simply wouldn't be possible for us to do them, and it would be natural enough that we wouldn't feel our free will was constrained. (Consider, say, walking unprotected on the ocean floor.)
• you realize that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent deity is unlikely to play a cosmic game of "telephone" to get their message out, when they could just tell people directly.
• you realize that the grand design of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent deity is unlikely to be fragile enough to be perturbed, much less derailed, by anything YOU could ever manage to do.
• you like to tweak the believers by reminding them that if there are no atheists in foxholes, it's because they're smart enough not be out on the battlefield in the first place, having realized the skin-preserving benefits of remote controlled drones. ;)

While that's funny, it'd be funnier if you added appropriate punctuation.

baltimore aureole:

take this simple test - you might be an atheist if . ..

Really not sure that the world is necesarilly divided into only athiests and the ignorant yahoos of your examples.

Anyway I'd offer that you might NOT be an athiest - or philosophical materialist i.e. someone who believes that only physical material exists - if:

1. You are aware that the core of what Budha and Jesus taught is that the very existence of our consiousness is the key to God (e.g. "The kingdom of God is within you", "I am who am", etc)

2. There is absoluteley no credible explanation offered by philosophical materialism to explain how our first person sentience exists.

movie reference -

in saturday night fever, john travolta's hyper catholic mom is praying to god to have her oldest son call her more often.

travolta's response - "wait - you're using god as some kind of telephone operator?"

religion used to assert that the difference between man and animal was the knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity for introspection - this is how we supposedly know man was made in gods image

i have met quite a few animals that appear to have higher capacity for introspection and more altruistic behavior than certain people.

i don't attribute the behavior of these animals to their being more god-like than humans, however.

I'm not getting point 1. It seems a pretty limited mind that can only be aware of philosophies or religious tenets with which they agree. I'm perfectly aware of the ins and out of old Norse mythology - that doesn't make me a neo-Wotanist.

And as for 2, that one cuts both ways. After all, you might be an athiest if you can find absolutely no credible explanation as to how the sentience of the divine exists. :)

*nod*

My 8 year old golden retriever is about a sentient as the average 2-3 year old.

There is really no other way to ascribe certain behaviors he has. He has *some* rudimentary knowledge of 'right and wrong' or at least as pertains to some things he should not be doing. For example, when he knows he's doing something he shouldn't, like shredding paper, He will block what he has picked up from my line of sight, with his body, no matter where I am, and take it where I can't see him to shred it, often out of the room. (this, leaving the room, however, is a dead give-away. He's a 'be with' kind of dog. )

celtic:

2. There is absoluteley no credible explanation offered by philosophical materialism to explain how our first person sentience exists.

What's true is that there is as yet no explanation for first-person sentience. So what? That doesn't mean that one isn't forthcoming, and it's idiotic to infer (as you seem to here) that in the absence of a scientific/materialist explanation, then it must have been God (or philosophical transformation thereof) or some otherwise non-material metaphysical something-or-other behind the scenes that touches us all with ineffable and non-corporeal magic at our core. Give me a break.

Here they are...all fixed and better....

Anyway I'd offer that you might NOT be either an athiest or a philosophical materialist i.e. someone who believes that only physical material exists - if:

1. You are aware that the core of what Budha and Jesus and Popeye taught is that the very existence of our consiousness is the key to God - I am who am", "I am what I am"

2. There is absoluteley no credible explanation offered by philosophical materialism to explain how our first person sentience exists, since it can't be proven to exist at all, so instead you believe that 'by magic' or 'by the will of my secret invisible friend' qualifies as a credible explanation and sufficient proof of its existence.

Uncle_Spike:

2. There is absoluteley no credible explanation offered by philosophical materialism to explain how our first person sentience exists, since it can't be proven to exist at all, so instead you believe that 'by magic' or 'by the will of my secret invisible friend' qualifies as a credible explanation and sufficient proof of its existence.

The fact that you have awareness is the one and only thing that you can be sure does exist. Everything else is filtered through senses (which can be fooled).

Lyger:

I'm not getting point

To put another way, when those who appear to have been thought to have directly experienced God such as Budha and Jesus, have said that there is more than this material world and that the key lies in our consciousness, and when there is no credible explanation from physical materialism for how our consciousness exists, then I think it gives a level of probability that Jesus and Budha were on to something.

2. There is absoluteley no credible explanation offered by philosophical materialism to explain how our first person sentience exists.

Science (and philosophical materialism) cannot satisfactorily explain to celtic how consciousness arises from the brain, therefore God exists and/or substance dualism is true.

I think there's something of a gap between the premise and the conclusion, but that's just me.

who would pass your atheist test. I fail to qualify as an atheist on the last point, but IMHO people in the West have had the opportunity to accept my religion (Christianity) and therefore have chosen their ultimate destiny. If you don't want God, that is what He will give you, for all eternity.

As for the unreached peoples of the world, I don't honestly know, but it IS a compelling reason for missionary work.