**"Does atheism offer a complete worldview, or is it solely a rejection of theism?"**

Atheism and empiricism are excellent and eternal bedfellows. However, not everything is measurable, quantifiable or observable. Often the very things that matter most to us are the substance of faith.

A child may lack a belief in god but that hardly makes the child an atheist. An agnostic lacks a belief in god, but the point of agnosticism is that neither atheism nor theism are believed. A thoughtful atheist might have an interesting worldview to provide a rationale for atheism. But other atheists may be merely dismissive and not give the matter much thought.

Atheism sometimes is a blindness of mind, or a weakness in faith. If God is good and kind, how about testing His existence?

There is an existence of divine power but their detection is only possible if our body vibrational energy become Higher. May be those divine power may have higher power. because every smallest pint in this universe is starting and ending of itself.

Regarding the question in the subtext: **"Can a moral and ethical society exist without belief in a higher power or divine authority, or is religion necessary for guiding human behavior?"**

Look at the current state of the world. Isn't it obvious that belief in a higher power or divine authority is not sufficient for guiding human behavior? That suggests that the missing ingredient for a peaceful and moral existence is not religion.

Talking about ethics and the ethical community is in fact talking about the extent to which the mind can reach ethics. At the same time, it is talking about the agreement of many minds in judging something as acceptable ethics or unacceptable ethics.

I believe that this matter makes us differentiate between two types of ethics.

-1- The ethics that the mind can decide are ethics. This type is the ethics that all rational people, ancient and modern, know are ethics. And they are agreed upon, such as: theft, injustice...

-2- Ethics that the mind may not be able to reach: such as knowing the limits of equality between men and women, knowing the meanings of freedom and liberation, and specifying punishments to reform society... because we want all of these meanings to be effective in society. And that commitment to implementing them leads to reforming societies and moving them from one social state to a better one. I believe that this type of ethics can only be known through revelation and what the honorable messengers have told us.

إن الحديث عن الأخلاق والمجتمع الأخلاقي، هو في الحقيقة حديث عن مدى إمكانية العقل في الوصول إلى الأخلاق. وهو في نفس الوقت، حديث عن اتفاق العقول الكثيرة، في الحكم على الشيء، أنه من الأخلاق المقبولة، أو أنه من الأخلاق غير المقبولة.

وأعتقد أنها هذا الأمر، يجعلنا نفرق بين نوعين من الأخلاق.

-1- الأخلاق التي يمكن للعقل، أن يقرر أنه من الأخلاق. وهذا النوع، هو تلك الأخلاق، التي يعلم جميع العقلاء، في القديم والحديث، أنها من الأخلاق. وهي متفق عليها، مثل: السرقة، والظلم...

-2- الأخلاق التي قد لا يستطيع العقل، أن يصل إليها: مثل، معرفة حدود المساواة بين الرجل والمرأة، ومعرفة معاني الحرية والتحرر، وتعيين العقوبات لإصلاح المجتمع... لأننا نريد من كل هذه المعاني أن تكون فعالة في المجتمع. وأن يؤدي الالتزام بتطبيقها إلى إصلاح المجتمعات، والانتقال بها من حالة اجتماعية إلى حالة اجتماعية، أفضل منها. وأعتقد أن هذا النوع من الأخلاق، لا يمكن أن نعرفه إلا من طريق الوحي، وبما أخبر به الرسل المكرمين.

Atheism is the negation of God's existence

While I believe that religion can provide a powerful framework for guiding human behavior and promoting moral values, I also think that morality can be derived from reason, natural law, and human experience. In other words, human beings can develop a sense of right and wrong, justice and compassion, through their own rational faculties and observation of the world around them.

I do think that a sense of transcendence, or connection to something larger than oneself, can be a powerful motivator for moral behavior. This can be achieved through various means, including religion, philosophy, or a sense of wonder and awe at the natural world.

I believe that a moral and ethical society can exist without a traditional concept of divine authority, but it would require a robust and well-reasoned philosophical framework to guide human behavior. This framework would need to be based on a deep understanding of human nature, the natural world, and the principles of justice, compassion, and reciprocity.

I have studied examples of non-religious philosophical systems, such as Aristotelianism, that have provided a moral and ethical foundation for human society. Similarly, in our modern era, I have no doubt that human beings can develop and uphold moral and ethical values without necessarily relying on a traditional concept of God or divine authority.

However, as also a religious thinker, I must confess that I believe that a profound sense of spirituality and connection to a higher power can enrich and deepen human experience, and provide a powerful source of inspiration and guidance for moral and ethical living. But this, Ahmed Hasan Sahib Al-Battat , is a matter of personal faith and conviction, rather than a necessary condition for a moral and ethical society to exist.

Dear Ahmed Hasan Sahib Al-Battat ,

Atheism is generally defined as a lack of belief in God, though it can also extend to the belief that no gods exist. This distinction depends on whether atheism is viewed passively as an absence of belief (negative atheism) or actively as a rejection of theism (positive atheism). It differs from agnosticism, which concerns knowledge rather than belief. Philosophically, atheism arises from skepticism, critical inquiry, or personal conviction.

Best,

Zylfije Tahiri

Dear Professors,

I believe that there is an important point of agreement between us. It is that certain moral values ​​can be produced and accessed by the human mind, which can then be established as moral rules. For example, the human mind has determined that legitimate defense is a right, that forgiveness is a noble virtue, and that freedom is a right...

But the important question, which may be a source of disagreement among these minds, is: What are the limits of legitimate defense? What are the limits of freedom? Why do many philosophers differ in defining the limits of freedom? Why do they lag behind in defining rights and duties? Why has Western legislative thought been divided into naturalism and positivism? And why have there been so many philosophical theories of law?

I believe that the long journey of the Western mind to discover the best theory to address humanity's social, political, and educational issues is far from over. This journey has lasted nearly two thousand years, and reaching it may require additional effort, or it may never be reached.

However, I do not deny the progress, development, and civilization that this thought has contributed to humanity in the field of legislation. No one can deny these efforts. We value all these efforts and view them as a contribution to the human journey and pioneering steps toward a better life in which all people enjoy freedom, justice, equality, love, and brotherhood.

As for the claim of atheism, I don't believe it will find any tangible justification that would be acceptable to reason and prolong its life. In my estimation, atheism is besieged by the precise laws of this universe, the laws that govern the great creatures—the earth and the sky, the seas and the mountains—and the laws that regulate human relations. It is besieged by the laws that connect the brain to the respiratory system, and connect sight to hearing and sensation...

As I understand it, philosophical thought in understanding matter and everything related to it is very advanced. It is an addition to human civilization. As for the unseen, philosophical thought has faltered in understanding them for many reasons. The most important of these is that it has failed to arrive at the reason for that cosmic order, which addresses every human mind, with its rational, material evidence, leading to belief in the unseen. It has also failed to know the divine truth and its special attributes.

Game theory, if applied, can lead to moral and ethical society. In a game where one gets 5 points if another player cooperates with them while they do not cooperate back, 3 points if both parties cooperate, 1 point if neither player cooperates and nothing if they cooperate but the other player does not , to collect the maximum number of points, one cooperates every time in the first encounter with another specific player, then in all subsequent interactions with that specific player they act as the other player did in the last encounter. The winning approach receives points in every encounter, neither other approach does. Considerations of the divine need not enter in.

Abdelhak,

Not reason that suggested legitimate defence, although self preservation might have, but Augustine who levered it into Christian belief systems after several centuries of non-violence according, they believed, to the original teaching. The Roman states attrition, particularly in North Africa where Augustine was born and continued to live, of Christians persuaded many of the folly of that position.

From Augustine's amendment it was taken up by Moslem leaders.

William,

Agreed. Religion is a means of highlighting a number of supposedly moral conditions and many that are not!

Atheism is primarily defined as the lack of belief in God (or gods). While its core remains this basic definition, its implications vary across disciplines:

• In secular academia, atheism is often treated as a neutral stance—a default position in the absence of empirical evidence for deities.
• In Christian theology, it is frequently viewed as a spiritual condition with profound existential consequences, reflecting a deliberate rejection of divine revelation (e.g., Romans 1:18-20).
• In philosophy, atheism functions as a claim that demands rigorous engagement with theistic arguments, whether epistemological, metaphysical, or logical.

Atheism can be further categorized into two main forms:

Sergio Leal Ramirez, you have dine an excellent job of delineating the basic forms of atheism and I thank you for this. I think you draw a fine line between secular and philosophical, but both these schools, as well as both Negative and Positive face new challenges from recent science, that is science from roughly the past 40 years, which most people are ignorant of, (an entity like the commonly considered divine seems not just plausible but probable according to some experimental science, see Princeton's Engineering Anomalies Research Study [PEARS] and subsequent research)but willful ignorance can preserve some. Christian atheism can stand its ground though as it demands a very specific deity and science cannot offer much in the way of support that that specificity. Ignored history helps but willingly ignoring it has been done for several centuries at least, a category of willful ignorance again.