Atheism - I don't understand it

[A-ManESL]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

 

[bobhikes]

There are as many different atheists as there are Muslims. I can't respond for all but can give you my path.

I grew up in a very religious family at one point I had thoughts of a religious career. I thought I had a calling.

I learned many things about my church that were contrary to its teachings. I read though my churches texts and found I interpreted it other ways. I decided my church was not right for me. I search through other religions none satisfied me. Then I searched myself for God. I couldn't find God, I couldn't find a way God could exist. I realized this is personal thing no one can share my experiences or beliefs indeed no one actually believes the same things as anybody.

I settled on Atheist Agnostic and am the happiest I have ever been in my life.

 

[Looncall]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

If something is really evidence, one would expect that it could be shared with anyone who is interested. I have never encountered any such thing concerning the existence of god(s) that was in any way convincing.

Your prescription sounds like a way to acquire a delusion, not knowledge. The fact that believers believe something does not count as evidence at all.

One need not be sure there is no evidence so long as one is willing to change one's opinion if one should encounter any.

If you want to promote the idea of a god, it is up to you to provide evidence. If you cannot, your belief should be counted as a mere delusion by others. This is one of the key ideas of the "new atheism".

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

I have no need for a god.

 

[A-ManESL]

If something is really evidence, one would expect that it could be shared with anyone who is interested.

But what we are taught is that it can, provided you do the pre-requisite training. Or are you are saying that you expect it to be understood by you without any pre-requisite training?

If you want to promote the idea of a god, it is up to you to provide evidence. If you cannot, your belief should be counted as a mere delusion by others. This is one of the key ideas of the "new atheism".

Except that I am not promoting anything here. What I am wondering is why atheists believe/accept there is no God because they have no evidence for it. It seems to me that the Agnostic position would be the natural and logical one in such a situation. Does this "new atheism" idea have any philosophical backing? Personally to me it seems to be a very closed minded idea. Even outside religion, I would not say something is a delusion if I can't find any evidence for it.

Let me draw a parallel from mathematics. There is a result which is claimed to be proved by some (who say you have to do some pre-requisite courses to understand the proof). That result, of which no counter-example is known, could be classified as a conjecture for those who have not seen the proof.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

A few caveats before I answer your question:
- There are many different reasons why people become atheists so my view is just one among many.
- I do not claim to know with 100% certainty that there is no god, but then again, I don't claim to know with 100% certainty that there are no faeries or unicorns.
I mean no offence, but please know that, to me, these are all the same thing; unsubstantiated claims that we have no reason to believe.

When I say that there is no evidence for a god or gods I am referring to objective empirical and scientific evidence.
I do not mean something that some guy saw or heard or claimed at one time and on that basis some people started to take him seriously.
Now, I'm pretty sure that if we had objective empirical scientific evidence that proved the existence of a god beyond reasonable doubt, it would be pretty public, and in all likelihood I would have heard of it.
However, on the off-chance that I'm wrong, and I might be, I often ask the question that so many theists hate: "Do you have any evidence for that?"
If the answer to that question is an effective 'no', then I still don't have any reason to believe that there is a god or gods.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Well there's weak/strong atheism. Strong being the position that God does not exist, and weak being the position that there isn't sufficient evidence that God does exist to justify belief.

You might therefore consider a weak atheist to be in-between agnostic and strong atheist if you were to put them in a list. I don’t believe the strong position is logical because I don’t see that we have sufficient knowledge to make that kind of statement. We should always be open to the possibility we’re wrong.

But what we are taught is that it can, provided you do the pre-requisite training. Or are you are saying that you expect it to be understood by you without any pre-requisite training?

I’d be interested to know what this ‘pre-requisite training’ is about, and how it provides evidence of God.

 

[Willamena]

I have no need for a god.

This--especially where god can be found in the provision of my needs.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Atheism can be divided into strong atheism (I am certain that there is no God) and weak atheism (I don't believe that there is a God).

Most atheists belong to the second cathegory, as do I. To me, the Universe fills the space of a personal God. The Universe is self-sustaining, awesome and worthy of reverence. Everything is the Universe and there is no need for something to transcend the Universe, since everything can happen by natural events. My "spiritual" needs are filled by the Universe and I don't long for eternal life or paradise.

 

[Looncall]

But what we are taught is that it can, provided you do the pre-requisite training. Or are you are saying that you expect it to be understood by you without any pre-requisite training?



Except that I am not promoting anything here. What I am wondering is why atheists believe/accept there is no God because they have no evidence for it. It seems to me that the Agnostic position would be the natural and logical one in such a situation. Does this "new atheism" idea have any philosophical backing? Personally to me it seems to be a very closed minded idea. Even outside religion, I would not say something is a delusion if I can't find any evidence for it.

Let me draw a parallel from mathematics. There is a result which is claimed to be proved by some (who say you have to do some pre-requisite courses to understand the proof). That result, of which no counter-example is known, could be classified as a conjecture for those who have not seen the proof.

You have hold of the wrong end of the stick. Absence of evidence does not lead to the conclusion that there is no god, but it also does not lead to the conclusion that there is one. What one should do is withold belief in either conclusion. Without evidence, belief is delusion.

What would you call belief that is not backed with evidence?

 

[Gharib]

You have hold of the wrong end of the stick. Absence of evidence does not lead to the conclusion that there is no god, but it also does not lead to the conclusion that there is one. What one should do is withold belief in either conclusion. Without evidence, belief is delusion.

What would you call belief that is not backed with evidence?

I think in the real world we call that belief.

 

[Caladan]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

The best I can do to help you understand is this: Imagine accepting the world as it is, without seeking parental guidance of the supernatural kind. I don't believe in God as a default position. Not because 'I feel like it'. As for evidence, in regards to many spiritual dogmas, it sure doesn't help them when they are not a true alternative for hard science, and in many cases the soft sciences. I tolerate all dogmas and philosophies until they try to substitute common sense, naturalism, objectivity, freedom of choice, or moderation.

Perhaps I can ask you a question as well. What is it that you mean by 'God'? or 'believing in God', or 'being bestowed of God's knowledge'. How do you measure or describe your evidence, beliefs, and knowledge? is it a feeling? intuition? gut feeling? humility? appreciation of life?

 

[BobbyisStrange]

What would you call belief that is not backed with evidence?

Faith....which is something I don't have. Yes, I don't believe in a god or gods because of the lack of positive evidence for their existence...what I don't understand is why anytime a believer doesn't understand why we say this, they shift the burden of proof, which is what the original poster is slightly doing. It is not up to us, the atheist, to provide the positive evidence, it is up to the one making the positive claim....now I know you didn't quite say like that, but you did ask, how can we be so sure there isn't...well if there is any, please show is. I believe in god the same way you believe in unicorns, goblins, trolls under bridges and leprechauns who give you pots of gold at the end of rainbows...they all could exist, but they all share one key thing in common....no evidence. So when someone say are you an atheist, I will say yes...when someone asks does god exist, I say I don't know...I'm an agnostic atheist....

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

If there is evidence, and we have yet to attain it, why jump to conclusions before the evidence rolls in?

I could claim griffins are real by the same logic. Would you hold belief in everything that lacks evidence on the hopes that you will find the evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God".

Many of us aren't "sure" in the sense that we're certain there are no gods.
But there is still no real evidence for gods.....or magical unicorns....or a stack of
giant turtles supporting the world.....so we don't believe in any of those things.

In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

That is the religious method for determining what is true, which is based upon what one feels, & faith in what one is told.
We prefer the scientific method. This does not lead us toward any of the many varied religions.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or....

It is the case that I feel no need to believe in gods. And I admit that after many decades
of watching humanity, I'd rather not believe in them. Some things I've noticed:
- Religious folk behave just as badly as everyone else.
- Many very different religions claim to have sole access to the "truth". Yet their beliefs are mutually exclusive.
- At most one such faith would be correct, & they don't even have a method to figure out which one it would be.
- Their dogma purports the most outrageous beliefs as historical fact, eg, global floods, magical food.
- Their dogma would severely & eternally punish those who have done nothing deserving of that.
- They cannot even agree among themselves what their sacred scripture means.
- They adjust this meaning over time in order to suit the times.

2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

That is presumptuous. I don't claim to know much. But you cannot convince me that
you're right about gods just because there could be evidence as yet unknown to us.
One could prove anything true if that were allowed, eg, magical invisible pink unicorns.

 

[Kerr]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

I can relate in a way. Religion doesnt make much sense to me. But its ok, we are allowed to not understand each other, and we always have this forum to ask questions about it .

To answer your question, it is about perspectives. From my perspective, I dont see a reason to believe that a supernatural entity, like God, exists. It would fall into the same category as, say, a unicorn. I have not seen any evidence. But does that mean that there is no evidence? If he exist then there may be something somewhere that proves it. I have however not seen it, so how can I be convinced by it? I dont really feel any need to believe in Gods existence either (I have apatheistic tendencies), so I guess its just more natural for me to be an atheist.

Another perspective is that if there is no proof that God doesnt exist then you should keep having faith. I can understand that perspective in a way and I consider it about as valid as mine, even though I dont look at it that way myself.

 

[Iti oj]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

im an atheist but before i became one i was studying at seminary school.
1. because i think and question things
2. because i have asked and looked for answer science has answered and religion has just made things up.

I would like to add while im an atheist about your god im agnostic about a god.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What would you call belief that is not backed with evidence?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and answer "Atheism"! :run:

 

[BobbyisStrange]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and answer "Atheism"! :run:

Atheism isn't a belief system.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Atheism isn't a belief system.

It's a disbelief system... and I can't believe you didn't see the humor in my post.