What’s your main reason for being a theist or an atheist?

[atanu]

There is only one reality, and theists miss the mark by believing in that which is illogical and has zero evidence to support its viability.

I agree. What is that one reality?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I appreciate atheism isn’t a religion but it seems clearly a belief and an important part of one’s worldview. If I’m wrong about that, no problem. That’s what I like about RF. It’s a great place to learn and talk to different people across the globe.

But it's not that important. It only seems that way when it's being looked at by people who consider their own god(s) to be important.

If you asked me to describe my worldview, I would describe it as skepticism, humanism, and freethought. Atheist doesn't enter into it except to the extent that atheism is one implication - though probably not the most important implication - of skepticism properly and consistently applied.

The big reason I take offense when people label atheism as a "belief," "worldview," or "religion" isn't because I'm trying to avoid some perceived burden of proof; it's because I see this view as so self-centered and chauvinistic on the part of the the theists who try to promote it.

Atheists are diverse. Really the only point where their beliefs have anything in common is in the fact that their beliefs don't include gods.

My belief system is not the belief system of a Raelian, but we are both atheists. When some theist tells me that "atheism" is a belief system, what they're implying is that all the differences between my actual belief system and the belief system of a Raelian don't matter. It's insulting and minimizing to both the Raelian and me.

On top of that, it's pretty hubristic of the theist to decide that the most important issue in their personal belief system has to be the most important issue in every belief system.

 

[Phaedrus]

These days, the main reason I stay on RF - besides the appeal of bickering over politics - is to try to salvage some sort of respect for religious belief and theism.

I have respect for people, but after all I have experienced and witnessed I simply cannot respect the religious or theistic concept.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is probably going to sound mean or cruel, and I honestly don't care. It is the truth.

The main reason I am atheist is because I have found that those calling themselves "theist" are never able to maintain intellectual integrity when arguing or defending their points. This is not to say that I feel all of them to be intellectually bankrupt - not at all. I have met extremely intelligent theists, obviously. What I mean is that, when it comes to defending their faith and using the only arguments and explanations that are at their disposal to do so, they display almost none of that intellectual capacity. In fact, to make those arguments and hold those positions, I truly believe that they must, necessarily, eschew/shun intellectual integrity in order to forge ahead and make the assertions they make. Call it a "temporary suspension of intellectual integrity." That is all I have ever seen in theistic arguments and presentations of "evidence." I keep wondering if someone might actually change that... but have been disappointed at every turn. Hence the reason I can't believe any of it. Hence the reason I am, and continue to be an atheist.

 

[columbus]

I agree. What is that one reality?

I am extremely confident that none of us limited humans knows.

Which is why I don't find religion very credible. Religion is a bunch of humans confidently asserting some really implausible things about the Creator, morality, the afterlife, and such.

It stands to reason that there is vastly more to reality than we limited creatures can perceive or understand. So I am no hard atheist. But the humans claiming to understand things like God, and having no evidence stronger than hearsay and delusion, don't impress me.

So while I believe that the word god is reasonably applied to "the reason that there is something, rather than nothing", that's as far as it goes. Agnostic deism is as close to theism as I get.

And agnostic deism isn't very close to theism. It's much closer to agnostic atheism than anything else. God doesn't want anything, care about anything, plan anything, get emotional about anything, or any of the other anthropomorphic characteristics humans add to their God images.
Because I believe that religion, especially Abrahamic religion, is basically humans creating gods in their own image.

Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly Abrahamic Theism contradicts atheism and both can not be true. Most of us would agree. Deism is closer to atheism.

Actually, deism is even more opposed to my own beliefs than classical monotheism is.

With a typical Abrahamic theist, we both usually agree to the "rules of the game:" we can usually agree on how we could deduce a conclusion (e.g. "God exists") from some set of initial premises. We just disagree on whether these premises are correct or not.

OTOH, deists effectively argue that the normal premises to justify belief in God are all false, but belief in God is justified anyway. My objections to deism are all rooted in much more fundamental disagreements about the role of logic, reason, and evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It stands to reason that there is vastly more to reality than we limited creatures can perceive or understand. So I am no hard atheist.

I think that a key aspect of the term "god" is that a god is an object of human worship, so I see the idea of a god existing out in the great unknown, far beyond the knowledge of humanity, to be a contradiction in terms.

 

[columbus]

I think that a key aspect of the term "god" is that a god is an object of human worship, so I see the idea of a god existing out in the great unknown, far beyond the knowledge of humanity, to be a contradiction in terms.

So, you've decided that a characteristic of God is "an object of worship", and having a different image is "a contradiction of terms".

That's kind of an irrational limitation.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you've decided that a characteristic of God is "an object of worship", and having a different image is "a contradiction of terms".

That's kind of an irrational limitation.
Tom

That's not what I said. Read more carefully.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We all believe what we do for some reason. I’m a theist and believe in the God of Abraham. That God I believe is concerned for humanity and for each one of us. Out of His love for us all He’s guided us through His Great Educators such as Christ, Muhammad, the Buddha and Krishna to name a few. What I believe makes perfect sense to me but I can see merit in arguments that would reject such a view. I believe in God because:
1/ It seems rational
2/ It resonates with my experience in life
3/ It works practically.

An atheist could use exactly the same argument of course. I tried atheism for about a year but it was the worst year of my life. Some atheists would probably say the same about their experiences of theism. So I can see how atheism makes sense. It just doesn’t work for me.

Why do you believe what you do? We’re in the religious debates section so feel free to debate. I might too...who knows!? I don’t really like atheist verses theist debates. This could be s first. Let’s see how we go.

For me, I was on a search for what was best for humanity, to end wars, establish peace and unity, end prejudices of all kinds and create a family of humanity with diversity.

Exclusivism and superiority beliefs I found could not achieve this, but in fact were the cause of many conflicts and wars. Atheism I felt lacked a vision and was to me directionless offering no solution or plan for today’s dilemmas.

I found in my religion a vision and a plan that was inclusive and accepted everyone as equals both believer and non believer so to me oneness and equality are beliefs needed to create a flourishing world civilisation where all are welcome and all are part of one humanity. No longer is diversity a source of conflict but a form of beauty enriching our world.

A world where all religions, races, nationalities and genders are treated as equals with dignity and respect.

 

[Phaedrus]

So, you've decided that a characteristic of God is "an object of worship", and having a different image is "a contradiction of terms".

That's kind of an irrational limitation.
Tom

More accurately, some theists have decided on those characteristics for god.
What's a rational individual to do when there are so many schisms?

 

[columbus]

That's not what I said. Read more carefully.

Feel free to better explain

I think that a key aspect of the term "god" is that a god is an object of human worship,

Because that's what I read.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Feel free to better explain

Because that's what I read.
Tom

But you missed the "I think" part at the beginning?

I was describing my view and its implications, not trying to insist that you have to agree with it.

Maybe try not jumping to conclusions in future.

 

[columbus]

More accurately, some theists have decided on those characteristics for god.
What's a rational individual to do when there are so many schisms?

@9-10ths_Penguin is not a theist. He has decided that this characteristic is necessary to god.
I don't find that any more rational than when a theist confidently asserts implausible things about God.
Tom

 

[Phaedrus]

@9-10ths_Penguin is not a theist. He has decided that this characteristic is necessary to god.
I don't find that any more rational than when a theist confidently asserts implausible things about God.
Tom

You're advocating for thought crime, are you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin is not a theist. He has decided that this characteristic is necessary to god.
I don't find that any more rational than when a theist confidently asserts implausible things about God.
Tom

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

 

[columbus]

But you missed the "I think" part at the beginning?

I was describing my view and its implications, not trying to insist that you have to agree with it.

Maybe try not jumping to conclusions in future.

That doesn't really square with

My objections to deism are all rooted in much more fundamental disagreements about the role of logic, reason, and evidence.

I don't see your limitation as rational. Why must god be defined your way?
And what does it have to do with the great unknown?
Tom

 

[columbus]

You're advocating for thought crime, are you?

What?
Tom

 

[columbus]

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

I'm quoting what you posted.
How am I misrepresenting your position?
Tom

 

[Aupmanyav]

Besides I believe in non- violence.

That is nice, we like it; but not evangelism. That also is a sort of aggression.