This may well be a good reason not to ascribe to a whole set of theologies, but what has this to do with being an atheist?
-
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!
Why in God's name are you an atheist?
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Deism, Process Theology, Polytheism, ...
So, read through the thread. Atheism is a positive claim concerning what warrants belief and whether or not that prerequisite has been adequately met.
rojse
RF Addict
It's hard to base logical disbelief against every religion when you have not examined them all, and it isn't fair to disregard a religion before I have examined it in any detail.
Perhaps some of those areas of religion do go against part of my beliefs, but I would hope that I would be prepared to reexamine, reformulate, and even discard any or all of my beliefs as I improved my knowledge and scope on religion.
Aasimar
Atheist
No, you asked why are you an atheist, and people cited reasons for being an atheist.
This doesn't change atheism from meaning non-belief in a god or gods. Lack of belief is not a positive claim, it is the absence of one. Reasons for arriving at this conclusion are what you questions, not the conclusion itself.
I don't believe in a god = negative belief.
I believe there is no god = positive belief.
What your thread shows is that if you ask people why they are atheist, they have reasons. That doesn't mean that atheism itself makes positive claims.
While many atheists do believe there is no god, the term atheism still means non-belief in gods. The positive/negative belief in the ability to know that this belief is correct is referring to Strong/Weak Atheism.
Weak Atheist = I don't believe in a god.
Strong Atheist = I believe there is no god.
As is often cited, Atheism is a belief system if not collecting stamps is a hobby.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Why not?
Are there any compellingly presented evidential/burdened facts/proof of ANY kind that should persuade me to reasonably conclude that supernatural entities (of any kind) veritably exist; or exert any identifiably circumstantial influences upon my own daily existence?
If a (any) human were left to develop to adult maturity beyond any external influences of any religion, superstition, or mythology...what then would they "believe" to be relevantly impacting upon their choices and circumstances?
I would pose the antithetical query as much more illuminating and revealing into the "why" of what" people ascribe to, or choose to "believe" (as mitigated or unmitigated Fact/Truth)...
"Why are you a theist?"
ie...
"Why do you believe, that what(ever) you believe, is 'true/truth?'"
That distinct inquiry has remained my primary motivation for participation in RF since I registered back on 06/25/05.
I submit that atheism/"unbelief" is the "natural" state of humanity...
Religion (or more specifically in this case, "theism") injects an "unnatural" (or, if you prefer...a "supernatural") rationale/explanation upon (an otherwise) purely subjective "understanding" of the cosmos (in it's entirety); and an individual's (typically being assigned, proscribed, or ordained) "reason/purpose" of existence within that natural cosmos.
I can provide upon any request...overwhelming and compelling evidences that the cosmos exists...and goes about it's natural course...beyond any reasonable doubts, beyond any sentient concerns or interests; in neither favoring or punishing our species (much less regarding any individualistic focus) to ANY ascribable or ascertainable "reason/purpose to BE".
IF deities "exist", but leave neither fingerprints nor footprints upon their manifestly "interested" deeds/paths (of their parts/purposes that may concern humanity)...then...how is humanity to ever appreciate or acknowledge such (otherwise) anonymous "interventions"?
Is there ANY logic (as far as the human mind can adequately explain or present) that supports the idea that a utter lack of ANY physical evidence of any kind...EVER...should therefore lead one to conclude that invisible, unmeasured, undocumented, untestable (and apparently unavailable by 800 number) "deities"...are not only "existent", but are to be accepted ("rationally") incontrovertibly as both "existent" and "true"?
Again, I would submit that there is no logical, reasonable, or burdened-proof evidences of ANY kind to intellectually ascribe to ANY notion that a "deity" is a veritably "existent" entity... if concepts of faith-based beliefs and/or religion are left outside of (or at least subject to rational/skeptical inquiry) the human experience from birth.
Perhaps this reply serves to adequately answer/address the OP...perhaps not.
If not, the fault lies within myself...and not in any blamed demons, poltergeists, or mischievous gods/demi-gods.
If so...mea culpa.
If not...then perhaps Deus culpa...and I am absolved.
Hit_me_up024
Member
Papersock
Lucid Dreamer
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
--Buddha
--Buddha
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
Probably my favorite Siddartha Gautama quote, and as good a reason as any, in a concise way, of answering the OP. I was a bit more verbose, and gave an anecdote to answer, but I think this one sums it up quite well, nicely done.
B.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
"Why" questions have a lot of different kinds of answers, as Aristotle told us. I will tell mine as a sort of story. First I started thinking of myself as a skeptic, which is to say, I started to think about things scientifically, applying a scientific method. (Although at the time, I didn't know much actual science.) That really helped me understand and learn about a lot of things, and I thought my way of understanding and analysing things was more accurate, so I liked that.
So then I thought that a skeptic is a freethinker, so I guessed I was a freethinker. Then I realized that a freethinker questions all recieived wisdom, including the existence of God, so I should question that. So I asked myself, "Is there a God?"
So then I had to ask myself how was I going to figure out the answer? It seemed like it would be helpful to define my terms. So I defined God as an invisible divine creator being who cannot be perceived by any sense.
Since I have always looked at things from an epistemological approach, (years ago in college I decided that G.E. Moore was right, and the one thing we cannot doubt is "red patch now.") it came to me almost immediately that if I can't perceive it with any sense, then for all intents and practical purposes, isn't that the functional equivalent of not existing for me? If something exists that I can't perceive, isn't that about the same as not existing?
Hmmm. So then I thought about the arguments on the other side. Someome might say O.K. you can't perceive God per se, but you can perceive the effect of God. Now bear in mind I'm already wearing my attractive black plastic science eye-glasses. So I started looking around for what that might be. One that occurred to me was intercessory prayer. It seemed to me that if that worked, it would be powerful evidence for the existence of that particular God. It turns out that it doesn't, and that fact was very influential in my thinking on the subject.
But the big one was the watchmaker kind of argument, which I think is why many people do believe in God. "Well if there's no God, how did we get here then, and how come there's a universe and all that?" And it just seemed to me that science was doing a pretty good job and explaining separate bits of it, without having to bring in God.
As for the big picture, I still think it's all very mysterious, and for all I know there may be something, probably is something ineffable impossibly enormous and bizarre behind it all, some kind of Deist thingy, maybe not even a God, but something we will never know nor could we possibly. But that's all so remote and incomprehensible that I can get along on an earthly level with regarding It as, once again, non-existent. Whatever it is, no one can know or understand, and it's not written about in any holy book, and doesn't send silly commandments down on stone tablets or anything of that nature.
And that's where I remain today, only much more educated about what all that science stuff is.
So then I thought that a skeptic is a freethinker, so I guessed I was a freethinker. Then I realized that a freethinker questions all recieived wisdom, including the existence of God, so I should question that. So I asked myself, "Is there a God?"
So then I had to ask myself how was I going to figure out the answer? It seemed like it would be helpful to define my terms. So I defined God as an invisible divine creator being who cannot be perceived by any sense.
Since I have always looked at things from an epistemological approach, (years ago in college I decided that G.E. Moore was right, and the one thing we cannot doubt is "red patch now.") it came to me almost immediately that if I can't perceive it with any sense, then for all intents and practical purposes, isn't that the functional equivalent of not existing for me? If something exists that I can't perceive, isn't that about the same as not existing?
Hmmm. So then I thought about the arguments on the other side. Someome might say O.K. you can't perceive God per se, but you can perceive the effect of God. Now bear in mind I'm already wearing my attractive black plastic science eye-glasses. So I started looking around for what that might be. One that occurred to me was intercessory prayer. It seemed to me that if that worked, it would be powerful evidence for the existence of that particular God. It turns out that it doesn't, and that fact was very influential in my thinking on the subject.
But the big one was the watchmaker kind of argument, which I think is why many people do believe in God. "Well if there's no God, how did we get here then, and how come there's a universe and all that?" And it just seemed to me that science was doing a pretty good job and explaining separate bits of it, without having to bring in God.
As for the big picture, I still think it's all very mysterious, and for all I know there may be something, probably is something ineffable impossibly enormous and bizarre behind it all, some kind of Deist thingy, maybe not even a God, but something we will never know nor could we possibly. But that's all so remote and incomprehensible that I can get along on an earthly level with regarding It as, once again, non-existent. Whatever it is, no one can know or understand, and it's not written about in any holy book, and doesn't send silly commandments down on stone tablets or anything of that nature.
And that's where I remain today, only much more educated about what all that science stuff is.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Why is anyone an atheist, they simply haven't seen convincing evidence that some "god" entity exists that matches the many concepts out there.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well apparently I'm the most long-winded atheist here.
