• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reasons for atheism

Tomef

Active Member
What qualifies as God varies from religion to religion.
It does? Afaik they all share some sort of non-human powers. Unless you have some reason for getting sidetracked in discussions of different type of gods, do you get the idea that a god, as in some sort of being with powers humans don’t have - immortality is a common one for example, or the ability to perform miracles, and so on - is something all religions, as far as I aware, have created? As I said in the OP, I am an atheist as regards any specific claims for the existence of a god that I’ve come across, agnostic as regards the possible existence, somewhere, of some sort of being that might have those characteristics, such as immortality, or whatever - something that sets them apart from humans and hence makes them deities Do I speak for all agnostics? No, of course not. This thread isn’t about what this or that agnostic or group of agnostics might think.

Per THEIR religions texts? Of course! Otherwise they wouldn’t be calling them deities.

If there’s some definition of a deity in some text that doesn’t involve a claim of some god-like powers then you’ve got a point. I don’t know of any, maybe you do?
 
Last edited:

Tomef

Active Member
I've never believed in a religion or held theistic beliefs, but there was an extended period where I tried my best to accept the Catholic Church.

There were certainly lots of things that I couldn't assent to intellectually, but I found that the biggest obstacle to me accepting the religion was the cruelty... especially on issues related to sexuality.
What motivated you to join the Catholic church, if you don’t mind me asking?
 

Tomef

Active Member
But even if there was a being that meets all the Christian descriptions of God you previously listed, because I never met this being, I don’t call it God thus I am atheist towards that being.
If there were such a being but you didn’t know about it, you would have an atheist stance towards it? Or if you did know about it, you wouldn’t call it a god because you have some other idea of what being a god means?

What other descriptions of a god, that don’t involve some sort of supernal or supernatural attributes, are you thinking of?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
What's the difference between agnostic vs Agnostic?
It's my way to differentiate between the colloquial meaning of agnostic (doesn't know if any gods exist) and Agnostic (holds the philosophical position of Agnosticism, i.e. the existence or nature of gods isn't (can't be) known, and in the case of insufficient evidence judgement should be withheld).
But if the God in question is Kumari or Hallie Selassie, How can you make such a claim about people as real as you and I?
You don't know whether Kumari or Haile Selassie are (were) gods. Your claim is not supported by enough evidence so that a consensus exists about their divinity. It's just your and some other's opinion, not knowledge.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It does? Afaik they all share some sort of non-human powers. Unless you have some reason for getting sidetracked in discussions of different type of gods, do you get the idea that a god, as in some sort of being with powers humans don’t have - immortality is a common one for example, or the ability to perform miracles, and so on - is something all religions, as far as I aware, have created? As I said in the OP, I am an atheist as regards any specific claims for the existence of a god that I’ve come across, agnostic as regards the possible existence, somewhere, of some sort of being that might have those characteristics, such as immortality, or whatever - something that sets them apart from humans and hence makes them deities Do I speak for all agnostics? No, of course not. This thread isn’t about what this or that agnostic or group of agnostics might think.



If there’s some definition of a deity in some text that doesn’t involve a claim of some god-like powers then you’ve got a point. I don’t know of any, maybe you do?
Many here, me included, have had multiple threads with the goal to find the common definition that applies to all gods - with an empty set as the result. Sure, some things are frequently mentioned, like immortality or supernatural powers, but there have always been counter examples. And when asked about a certain quality, believers can never agree if a god has it.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It does? Afaik they all share some sort of non-human powers. Unless you have some reason for getting sidetracked in discussions of different type of gods, do you get the idea that a god, as in some sort of being with powers humans don’t have - immortality is a common one for example, or the ability to perform miracles, and so on - is something all religions, as far as I aware, have created?
You said “immortality, omnipresent, omniscient. I’m saying not all things people call God fits that description. There are people who worship the Sun, people who worship Nature. Again; not everything called God fit’s the description of God presented by Christianity.
As I said in the OP, I am an atheist as regards any specific claims for the existence of a god that I’ve come across, agnostic as regards the possible existence, somewhere, of some sort of being that might have those characteristics, such as immortality, or whatever - something that sets them apart from humans and hence makes them deities
Not everything given the title "God" fit's your description of what should be called God; agree?
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
If there were such a being but you didn’t know about it, you would have an atheist stance towards it?
In order for me to have a stance towards something, I have to be aware of it. So hypothetically speaking; if such a being did exist, because I am unaware of it, I do not call it God; thus my atheism
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
You don't know whether Kumari or Haile Selassie are (were) gods. Your claim is not supported by enough evidence so that a consensus exists about their divinity. It's just your and some other's opinion, not knowledge.
You speak as if there were an agreed upon definition of what constitutes God; there is not. There is a tree in my front lawn, if I decided to call it God, that tree could be as much of a God to me, as Yehweh is to a Christian. It would be rather foolish for an agnostic to stand next to my God/tree and say there is no way of knowing it exist simply because I choose to call it God; don't cha think?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
You speak as if there were an agreed upon definition of what constitutes God; there is not.
The opposite is the case. Because I know that there is no agreed upon definition of "god", I know that there can't be anything that is agreed to be divine.
 

Tomef

Active Member
Many here, me included, have had multiple threads with the goal to find the common definition that applies to all gods - with an empty set as the result. Sure, some things are frequently mentioned, like immortality or supernatural powers, but there have always been counter examples. And when asked about a certain quality, believers can never agree if a god has it.
A definition that would fit all fictional gods isn’t necessary for this thread, the two relevant concepts are a lack of belief in any of the fictional gods created by people, whatever definition those people give them, and the concept of what a god is, i.e. something not human and not a part of the natural world as we understand it. As I said in the OP, all of the gods created as fictional characters by people at different times. A-theism, a disbelief in all gods. That would include a disbelief that humans to whom others attribute godlike qualities are actual gods. I don’t think there’s much confusion around the idea that a god is not a human, as we understand humans, with our human limitations, and a human is not a god. Whether or not there is some other being somewhere we don’t know about that would match some ‘god’ criteria is maybe where at least some agnostics and some atheists differ.
 
Last edited:

Tomef

Active Member
In order for me to have a stance towards something, I have to be aware of it. So hypothetically speaking; if such a being did exist, because I am unaware of it, I do not call it God; thus my atheism
Ok, I think I see what you mean. Seems a bit convoluted though, atheism is a lack of belief in there being theos at all, not a lack of awareness of some hypothetical example of one. Agnosticism leaves open the possibility that there may be some kind of super or supernatural being out there. My atheism applies to all gods created as fictional characters by people. Whether or not there is some other being no-one has ever encountered is a different question, or I think it is.
 

Tomef

Active Member
that tree could be as much of a God to me, as Yehweh is to a Christian
Not really. For your tree to be considered a god, it would need to have some property that set it apart from other trees in some extraordinary fashion. If you say the tree is your god, you are saying something about yourself, not the tree. If you create some supernatural story that lends your tree some sort of divine status, then you’ve got the beginnings of a religion and atheists and agnostics can debate whether or not it can be known that your tree is divine (not whether or not it exists, that would be no different to questioning whether or not the lawn or your kitchen table exists, or whether Haile Sellasie the human person existed).
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Ok, I think I see what you mean. Seems a bit convoluted though, atheism is a lack of belief in there being theos at all, not a lack of awareness of some hypothetical example of one.
As far as I am concerned, those are the same thing.
Not really. For your tree to be considered a god, it would need to have some property that set it apart from other trees in some extraordinary fashion. If you say the tree is your god, you are saying something about yourself, not the tree.
Going by that logic, if a Christian says Jesus is God, that says something about the Christian; not Jesus.
If you create some supernatural story that lends your tree some sort of divine status, then you’ve got the beginnings of a religion and atheists and agnostics can debate whether or not it can be known that your tree is divine
Yeah; just like when Christians created some supernatural story that leads that Jesus some sort of divine status, atheists and agnostics debated whether or not it can be known that Jesus is divine; agree?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Please give your reasons for why you became an atheist if you have any that are specific.
Looking back, I can see that religion (we were Piscos) in our household was a matter of manners rather than belief. When I was a kid, now and then we went to Sunday service (which is how I'm able to sing the hymns (if any) at Christian funerals and weddings). I also went to Sunday school, and sang the kids's hymns and put my coin in the collection plate and generally learnt the ropes, though my overall reaction was disconnection.

Thus in time I discovered that if I helped clear the table after our fairly formal Sunday dinner, there'd be a moment when I could slip out through the laundry, get my bike, and take off. A few of these and my parents got the message.

Even so, when I was 14 and the church was holding its usual classes for the now largely omitted ritual of "confirmation", I had this sense that my failure to understand what the deal was could be traced to my lack of knowledge, and it seemed logical to me that once I was confirmed, became an insider, as it were, they'd let me in on all the secrets, especially about the afterlife. I ignored the bad omens about this ─ for example, every time I wanted to hear a clear exposition of how the afterlife worked, I'd be cheerfully told "Read your catechism" or "We'll come to that later". both replies being entirely false. I was confirmed regardless, was excited at the idea that all would now be revealed, worked out after a month or two that absolutely nothing was different, and gently faded from the scene.

I ceased to think about religion till the end of secondary school, and in my student days supposed I was an agnostic. It didn't really matter among my friends.

(One aside here, though. In my student days I drove a cab to get some income, and after a year or so noticed that when I'd had good luck, I'd heard myself thinking "Thank you, TG" where, I also noticed, TG stood for 'Taxi God'. This ties in neatly with the saying somewhat doubtfully attributed to D. G. Rossetti that "The worst time for an atheist is when he feels thankful and has no one to thank" ─ in other words, a common human feeling that certain kinds of luck are "sent".)

I had no resistance at all to getting married in a church, and when my wife's clan wanted our first child baptized, that didn't worry me either. If they hold my funeral in a church, fine, whatever the living would like ─ it's probably as convenient as anything else. When I was in politics, someone once raised the question of dropping the opening prayer, and I voted in favor, but only two or three of us did so and it was voted down. And that was no real concern either.

But we never otherwise went to, belonged to, any church, we raised our kids without church, and I can have no argument with the results.

I didn't get back to religion until the big fundie surge in the 90s, trying to get fundie nonsense taught in state schools, and somewhere around 2000 I found the old Beliefnet, and actually got to argue with some of them (some sentences deleted here, though did any of you ever come across that archdingbat Carl Crawford, under one or other of his many netnames?). I also found it was an interesting way to occupy the times in my SOHO where I wasn't busy. The importance of the Kitzmiller v Dover case (2005) in taking a great deal of the impetus out of the fundie movement is hard to overstate. It was in the course of those discussions that it dawned on me that none of us actually knew what we were talking about when we referred to "God", and later still I found the word for this was 'igtheist' or 'ignostic'. And when Beliefnet stopped being a discussion board, I let it all go for some years. But here I am, at RF ─ bad habits ....
 
Last edited:

Tomef

Active Member
As far as I am concerned, those are the same thing.

Going by that logic, if a Christian says Jesus is God, that says something about the Christian; not Jesus.

Yeah; just like when Christians created some supernatural story that leads that Jesus some sort of divine status, atheists and agnostics debated whether or not it can be known that Jesus is divine; agree?
I’m not sure if you’re reading the posts before you respond to them.
 

Tomef

Active Member
every time I wanted to hear a clear exposition of how the afterlife worked, I'd be cheerfully told "Read your catechism" or "We'll come to that later". both replies being entirely false.
I’ve come across that kind of thing too, otherwise smart people who sort of sink into this well if it’s in the bible it must be true way of thinking, and resist any questioning of it beyond a certain point. I do wonder what drives that, maybe the emotional investment involved in being part of that kind of faith community, or just being surrounded by other people with the same beliefs all the time.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I’ve come across that kind of thing too, otherwise smart people who sort of sink into this well if it’s in the bible it must be true way of thinking, and resist any questioning of it beyond a certain point. I do wonder what drives that, maybe the emotional investment involved in being part of that kind of faith community, or just being surrounded by other people with the same beliefs all the time.
I suspect it's because religion is stories, in this respect not unlike Harry Potter or Superman, and skeptical enquiry isn't. For instance, if I thought miracles were real ─ miracles are the same thing as magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality ─ I'd establish an institute to work out how they're done, but no church that I've ever heard of thinks like that.
 

Tomef

Active Member
I suspect it's because religion is stories, in this respect not unlike Harry Potter or Superman, and skeptical enquiry isn't. For instance, if I thought miracles were real ─ miracles are the same thing as magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality ─ I'd establish an institute to work out how they're done, but no church that I've ever heard of thinks like that.
I agree with you there, that the story is a big part of it. It is a great story, I think, really effective at conveying that sense of community, continuity, purpose, meaning etc. I suppose people can get so deep into that it feels like the only reality. I still get surprised though by people who have really studied the bible and its history, who understand that it’s basically just a book people wrote, and somehow still kind of do a mental slide past anything that doesn’t fit with what they want to believe.
 
Top