Why are you an atheist?

[Penumbra]

Hmmm...it's also my reason, albeit a shorthand version of it I suppose. I see no reason to believe in a higher power, higher powers, or whatever. There are a lot of things I don't believe in, simply because I see zero reason TO believe in them. My basic starting point on anything would be skepticism I suppose.

I'm not an atheist due to issues I have with religion, since I would separate God and religion. Even if I thought every religion in the world was ridiculous, I would still not be an atheist if I believed in a God. Likewise, whether the thought of a higher power is something I like or don't like is irrelevant. It's about what I believe to be true (or absent)...not what I want to be true.

[edit]It strikes me that my earlier post could easily be read as me saying my way of thinking is the only way, or the only true reason, or whatever. I actually meant it with all sincerity. Up to this point, I have always pretty much thought believing there was no God was the only reason.[/edit]

By definition, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. Not believing in gods is the necessary and sufficient condition for the term 'atheist' to be applicable.

So to say the reason for someone being an atheist is that she doesn't believe in gods, would be equivalent to saying, "The reason for her not believing in gods is that she doesn't believe in gods.", which itself would be circular, or a non-statement. It's just a repetition of a definition rather than a reason. That's what I meant by saying that it's a definition, not a reason.

It sounds to me more like you're saying you don't need a particular reason to be an atheist, or that you don't have a reason to believe otherwise, rather than saying literally that the reason you're an atheist is that you don't believe in gods.

You edited your post by saying that your earlier post could have been read as an exclusive statement, which is how I interpreted it as. Since that's not how you meant it, this really isn't a big deal. Just pointing out what I meant by saying it's a definition rather than a reason.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Okay...I see what you mean, in terms of it being a circular statement.

I suppose I don't need a reason to be an atheist. I would need a reason NOT to be.

On the earlier post thing, it's funny. I work in the IT industry, but am much more on the people and process side of things than the technical side. I have spent a MASSIVE amount of time over the years trying to convince IT people that emails/e-communication is fraught with danger unless you are very clear on what you're saying. People can't tell your tone, or when you are joking, etc, unless they know you very well, or you make it obvious via your language (or...eek...emoticons).

So, of course, I come here and make an ambiguous comment...lol

 

[StarryNightshade]

Science proves there is no after life in any way.

Science neither proves nor disproves an afterlife. It just shows how the world, and by extension the universe, functions.

To answer the OP, I don't really consider myself an atheist; or a theist for that matter. If anything, I guess the closest thing that represents what I believe would be transtheism. Why? It makes the most sense to me.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheism

 

[jmn]

You could say that about everything.

Yes you can. That's my point.

 

[Falvlun]

Okay...I see what you mean, in terms of it being a circular statement.

I suppose I don't need a reason to be an atheist. I would need a reason NOT to be.

I disagree with this because I think that any position requires thought and reason. There's no belief that should be accepted just "because".

There's also the added social component: Regardless of how ridiculous, non-rational, or wrong you may think theism is, it remains the majority view. It's easy to hold a majority view because it is less likely to be questioned. Minority views are socially harder to hold-- and there's good evolutionary reasons for that. So if you do hold a minority view, you better have a good reason for it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I disagree with this because I think that any position requires thought and reason. There's no belief that should be accepted just "because".

There's also the added social component: Regardless of how ridiculous, non-rational, or wrong you may think theism is, it remains the majority view. It's easy to hold a majority view because it is less likely to be questioned. Minority views are socially harder to hold-- and there's good evolutionary reasons for that. So if you do hold a minority view, you better have a good reason for it.

You're welcome to disagree. But you're assuming that I haven't thought about it, when that's simply not true. Not even close to true.

Thing is, I completely agree when you say there is no belief that should be accepted just "because". Atheism is not a state of belief. You can roll out arguments about atheism being belief in no God, or that I should be agnostic, or whatever, and it probably comes down to how we define things at a fairly detailed level. But I see religion as a social construct, and worship of anything (God(s), aliens, animals, ancestors, or whatever else) as...well..let's just say it doesn't resonate with me.

So I completely stand by what I said. I don't believe in God. Gods. Higher powers. Aliens who formed our society. The tag given to that lack of belief is atheism. So fine...I'm an atheist. As someone in another thread mentioned, I'm also a non-Canadian. Atheism is talked about along with religion because they are obviously related. Atheism shouldn't be talked about as other religions are, because it is not a religion...or a belief system...or even a consistent ideology.

The social component aspect of what you said is pretty interesting, in all seriousness. I have see this pretty consistently as a newcomer to the thread. Your connecting religion and belief...I mean, I understand why...but...

Take two brothers. One is a practicing Catholic, then other an avowed atheist. The first goes to Church, baptizes his kids, and follows the basic tenets of the faith. It's how he was raised, and his mum would go bat-guano crazy if he didn't. One is following the social norm (for his society) and the other is not...he might have been disowned, or maybe he's just a disappointment. Whatever. Now, say that neither of them believes there is a God. Doesn't that make them atheists?

You're making an assumption that an atheist has to declare themselves, and has to break away from social convention. Pretty sure I could fake it as a Christian of some flavour more convincingly than most.

Luckily for me, I live in a time and place where atheists are generally not burnt at the stake, or stoned, or whatever. Sure, I might cop some flack for my beliefs...or lack thereof...but I'm pretty sure people of every religion on this board cops that. So, it doesn't take a massive amount of bravery to openly declare myself an atheist. If I lived a thousand years ago, I might have followed the social norms...almost certainly would have. But if I could somehow transfer my education, thinking, and the like to a person that lived a thousand years ago, I would still be an atheist.

 

[jmn]

Science neither proves nor disproves an afterlife.

It doesn't have to. Its a tool used to explain, and predict about the universe.

The afterlife is a mere idea or concept, based on delusional thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Science neither proves nor disproves an afterlife. It just shows how the world, and by extension the universe, functions.

"Proof" is for math or alcohol, not science, but when it comes to the afterlife, the I would say that what science shows about how the world functions is that minds are dependent on brains... which would make any realm with brainless minds (e.g. most afterlife concepts) seem rather implausible.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Proof" is for math or alcohol, not science, but when it comes to the afterlife, the I would say that what science shows about how the world functions is that minds are dependent on brains... which would make any realm with brainless minds (e.g. most afterlife concepts) seem rather implausible.

It could be done by simulation. If we were continually monitored, & our thought processes completely known,
I'd say it's doable. But why would such a capable being bother to do it for us? We're not that entertaining or useful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It could be done by simulation. If we were continually monitored, & our thought processes completely known,
I'd say it's doable. But why would such a capable being bother to do it for us? We're not that entertaining or useful.

If by "simulation", you're referring to some sort of physical machine capable of thinking (or at least computing), then I'd say you're talking about a brain of sorts.

 

[Aletheia Athanatos]

If you are an atheist, what is the biggest reason?

My biggest reason for being a person who doesn't believe that Elvis is still alive, is that not holding a belief about something is the default position. I always try to allocate no higher an estimate of probability to a statement being true, than is justified by reliable evidence. I've not seen reliable evidence Elvis is still alive, so I don't go around wearing a T-Shirt of him driving a bus around the moon (or whatever the latest Illuminati conspiracy theory about him is).

Why would I treat religion any differently?

 

[Ella S.]

As a kid, I was taught that "science proves God." Eventually, I realized that there are no papers proving God's existence and that all of the historical arguments for God, like the Argument from Design, were debunked. All of the modern arguments for God are either God-of-the-Gaps arguments or the same old arguments that were debunked by science over a century ago.

I did investigate polytheism, too. If I'm being honest, since this is the Atheism DIR, I find it an embarrassment to the human race how Neopagan religions have resurrected all of these horrifically outdated superstitions that even Christians thought were silly centuries ago. I don't find theistic variations of Hinduism any more compelling, especially given that their arguments are so frequently bogged down by New Age pseudoscience.

I could, perhaps, have a soft spot for an impersonal form of Naturalistic Pantheism, where the universe itself is personified as God, but this is really more of a philosophical metaphor than an actual belief. I don't adhere to panpsychism or non-dualism and most forms of Pantheism I have seen tend to be a subset of monotheism or monolatry, which I have already rejected above.

I spent a long time trying to find evidence for the existence of some sort of god. I lurked on a lot of interfaith forums, exchanged emails with theologians, read a variety of relevant literature, etc. I haven't turned anything up yet. I'm about ready to give up the search, too, and just call it quits by now.

 

[Kfox]

If you are an atheist, what is the biggest reason?

Because I prefer the bitter truth over a sweet lie.