Why I Am an Atheist

[Kenny]

But surely this is what you might expect me, raised in an almost exclusively Abrahamic religion world (Christianity, Judaism, Islam....and I include Baha'i). It is usually unwise to make deep analytical statements about beliefs you are unfamiliar with (though many do).

So, yes, it is true that my "concept of God" is the one that I inherited through the culture, the people, the literature and the history that I was raised into. And thus, of course, it is that concept that I reject when I say that I am an atheist.

Which you have every right to do so.

But I see a problem here. You already acknowledged you never really believed so "being raised" or "inheriting the culture" doesn't create the ground for life.

I am reminded of Romans:

Romans 2:29 NAS
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

So, culture or how one is raised isn't the issue. It is the heart even as you, from the heart, believe in atheism. Every right to do so but doesn't mean that those who believe are wrong.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Two of you (@1213 and @KenS) have attempted to use a little linguistic fudging to refute what I consider to remain a valid argument.

The verse in question: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Ex 20:5) And what you have tried to do is to take that final phrase, and misapply it so that it seems God only visits iniquity on "those who hate me," rather than the descendants of "those who hate me." But I'm sorry, this is not what it says, and there is utterly zero reason to suppose that it is. If God would simply restrict his visiting iniquity those who deserve it, rather than including their offspring, the text would be less offensive. No judge, in any court in any civilized part of the world ever says to the convicted criminal before the bar: "I sentence you, AND YOUR CHILDREN..." There is no reason for the phrasing of the statement in Ex 20:5 other than to say, "I'll get you, and your kiddies, too!" (Just like the Wicked Witch of the West: "And your little dog, too!")

I've always disliked the patently dishonest ways that apologists twist and turn. They are, often, much worse than political spin-meisters, in my view.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, culture or how one is raised isn't the issue. It is the heart even as you, from the heart, believe in atheism. Every right to do so but doesn't mean that those who believe are wrong.

Of course not. Nor, however, does it mean they are right. That's why we call it "belief."

 

[Kenny]

Two of you (@1213 and @KenS) have attempted to use a little linguistic fudging to refute what I consider to remain a valid argument.

The verse in question: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Ex 20:5) And what you have tried to do is to take that final phrase, and misapply it so that it seems God only visits iniquity on "those who hate me," rather than the descendants of "those who hate me." But I'm sorry, this is not what it says, and there is utterly zero reason to suppose that it is. If God would simply restrict his visiting iniquity those who deserve it, rather than including their offspring, the text would be less offensive. No judge, in any court in any civilized part of the world ever says to the convicted criminal before the bar: "I sentence you, AND YOUR CHILDREN..." There is no reason for the phrasing of the statement in Ex 20:5 other than to say, "I'll get you, and your kiddies, too!" (Just like the Wicked Witch of the West: "And your little dog, too!")

I've always disliked the patently dishonest ways that apologists twist and turn. They are, often, much worse than political spin-meisters, in my view.

I'm surprised that you went from discussing to judging character. Perhaps this is why people end up changing the subject as you mentioned?

I have not "played linguistics" but gave supportive evidence.

I have also said

Not saying you can't have your position, I just don't agree with your conclusion or methodology.

So, I haven't disparaged you or demeaned you.

"There is no reason for the phrasing of the statement in Ex 20:5 other than to say, "I'll get you, and your kiddies, too!" (Just like the Wicked Witch of the West: "And your little dog, too!")" Hardly constructive declarations.

You are certainly welcome to have your viewpoint but, again, I just don't agree with your conclusion or methodology. i understand that you are declaring this in the backdrop of your experience and understanding, but like I said, there are many people who have answered those questions and even others, like Joyce Meyer, who came to a completely different conclusion than yours.

So your position doesn't translate that it is correct (and you certainly can say the same of my position). But note that there are different positions.

 

[Kenny]

Of course not. Nor, however, does it mean they are right. That's why we call it "belief."

That is correct. Your belief and my beliefs are different and your declaring that Christians are wrong doesn't make you right even as me declaring that you are wrong doesn't make me right.

Although it is overused, there is still some truth to what is said and that being, "When we die, we will find out everything".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Although it is overused, there is still some truth to what is said and that being, "When we die, we will find out everything".

And there, in stark simplicity, is the enormous gulf between us, Ken.

I am unshakeably of the opinion that anything I want to know, I'd better find out now, because when I die, it will be too late.

Yes, we most assuredly disagree on what it means to be dead...

 

[Kenny]

And there, in stark simplicity, is the enormous gulf between us, Ken.

I am unshakeably of the opinion that anything I want to know, I'd better find out now, because when I die, it will be too late.

Yes, we most assuredly disagree on what it means to be dead...

Yes we do - and, yet we agree, "I'd better find out now, because when I die, it will be too later".

Maybe you should consider my position without getting extreme on the comments?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes we do - and, we agree, "I'd better find out now, because when I die, it will be too later".

Maybe you should consider my position without getting extreme on the comments?

We have had this discussion before, and I've seen the implied threat too often.

I have not been extreme on my comments...I have stated my views, honestly and openly based on everything that I have seen or know, which includes everything I've been told about how it will be "too late" (the implied threat). And if you have an argument against any of my reasoning, based in reason, please raise it. But to simply trot out the implied threat again is not going to work any better than it has before.

If everything available to me cannot convince me that God exists and encourages my salvation, then there are two possibilities: I'm stronger than God, who presumable wants me to know that, or God doesn't know how, which tells me everything I need to know about God.

 

[Kenny]

We have had this discussion before, and I've seen the implied threat too often.

No more a threat than me expiring here on this earth and finding the Spaghetti Monster.

I have not been extreme on my comments...I have stated my views, honestly and openly based on everything that I have seen or know, which includes everything I've been told about how it will be "too late" (the implied threat). And if you have an argument against any of my reasoning, based in reason, please raise it. But to simply trot out the implied threat again is not going to work any better than it has before.

I pointed out the extreme... maybe it is just my viewpoint.

I have also honestly and openly declared my position.

And I did point out my reason (with documentation) of why your viewpoint of Exodus was wrong. You held to your position but really didn't refute mine.

And let's not create a strawman about "a threat".

If everything available to me cannot convince me that God exists and encourages my salvation, then there are two possibilities: I'm stronger than God, who presumable wants me to know that, or God doesn't know how, which tells me everything I need to know about God.

Or... you just don't want to consider a third possibility, that my reasonings are correct or a fourth, God honors your free will... I'm sure there are others than just your two or my additions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Part 2

Religion, it seems to me, teaches that we should be satisfied without bothering to try and understand, to accept without questioning. All I ever have is questions, and magisterial answers, fully dependent on authority and nothing else, leave me completely unsatisfied.

God’s Greatest Creation

I’ve seen the human race at work. God’s greatest creation is responsible for a list of horrors too long for recitation here.

But it’s not just the evil that men do. It’s the sheer bloody stupidity of so much of the race. Watch the football hooligans in the stands, or in the streets after the game. See this creature, a little lower than the angels, this “piece of work...so infinite in faculty,” as it watches endless hours of “reality television.”

I’ve heard Joel Osteen, a “good Christian,” describe gays and lesbians as “not god’s best work” on Larry King Live on CNN. Yet Osteen seems unable, at least in this particular case, to follow the one thing that Christ is said to have really insisted upon – to love his fellow man without judging. Having failed at this single Christian duty, he still considers himself to be, one must assume, among “god’s best work,” and therefore competent to judge the “sins” of others.

Guessing Game

A universe with god, well actually, with all the gods that humanity has created, is an endless guessing game, with poorer odds of being right than the lottery. What does god want? You’ll never figure it out by observing and trying to make sense out of who suffers and who enjoys happiness. If we can’t tell here on earth, what hope have we of understanding the rules by which one merits “heaven?”

Confusion

No god worthy of the position could possibly have arranged to be so variously, and badly, misunderstood. One hundred thousand religions later, and still no agreement on who or what god is, and what He/It wants.

Spirituality Needs Art, Not god

Spirituality is not aided by unwarranted fear nor unjustified hope, but rather by deeper understanding of ourselves and our universe. For true spirituality, put aside your scripture and turn instead to art – any art. And having done so, recognize that scripture is likewise art, able to provide us with new perspectives on ourselves and our world, worthy of similar (but not greater) respect.

Too Many Beliefs, Too Little Reason

I do not believe in god for the same reason that I do not believe in ghosts, the Yeti, Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, fairies, gnomes, ogres, gremlins, banshees, naiads, dryads, jinn, fairy god-mothers or spontaneous human combustion, among a rather longish list of other nonsense routinely held to be reasonable by far too many people.

· Every “fact” of science can be demonstrated again and again in controlled experiments. Every theory makes predictions which can be tested for. Not a single “fact” of such pseudo-scientific or religious nonsense ever has been, nor ever can be, tested, and none makes predictions that I’m aware of (or when they do, as is sometimes said of astrology, they are either to general to be useful, or turn out to be wrong a statistically correct number of times).

· When a theory of science is finally shown not to fulfill some criterion or other implicit in itself, then the theory is either corrected or discarded. Pseudo-science and religion are immune to that sort of self-correction, since there is never going to be any evidence to “disprove” their assertions anyway.

· If anything must exist, it might as well be the universe as god. Is a naked singularity so much less likely than a consciousness without any other sort of existence, (or means to support itself)? Why propose a middle-man, which only complicates matters?

Morals and Ethics

Throughout my entire atheist existence, I’ve managed to behave both more morally and more ethically, with more concern for my fellow man of whatever condition, than many of the religious people that I’ve known. I am in myself proof that morality needs no god – Torquemada, for example, is proof that believing in god does not guarantee moral behaviour.

What a tragic notion must be held by the faithful that if, by some calamity, they lost their faith in god, they would suddenly be unable to restrain themselves from theft and murder. The atheist is in no doubt at all that – should he suddenly believe in god – he should continue to behave as morally as he did before.

The problem with morality guided by religion is that religion (at least the human ones that I’m familiar with) is manifestly unintelligible. If this were not so, there would not, could not, have arisen about 100,000 of them in the course of human history.

God’s Infinite Mercy

I could never believe in both Hell and a merciful god. Mercy is not needed at all except by those who are not worthy of it. It is completely wasted on those who don’t need it.

Religion Gone Bad

I have seen human nature – that good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But to get a whole church or mosque panting for the deaths of the homosexuals, the idolaters, the “sinners” of every sort – yes, that takes religion.

Original Sin

Few things offend me as much as the idea of “original sin” – that I (the child abused by those most accountable for my security) inherit guilt along with their genes. The Bishop of Hippo would excuse god for deformed and still-born children on such a vile supposition, but I will not.

Conclusion, My Purpose, Not God's

Mostly, I am an atheist because I think, and none of my thinking led me to any notion of god. Nothing led me to understand that there was any other purpose to my existence than what I chose to make of it. My parents gave me life, but it is mine to live, not theirs. They can hope anything they like for me, but I will go my own way.

I am not interested in being the object of “god’s purpose,” whatever that might be (and I challenge anyone to tell me what it is). I’m the object of enough other purposes over which I have little control. Regarding a meaning or a purpose for my life, I prefer my own. And at the, least I have some hope of knowing what it is.

Post Scriptum

I was mentioning this the other day to a friend, who said to me my analogy of winning the lottery and belief is flawed with respect to belief. She said,"I play the lottery because I hope to win, not because I believe I will win."

Point taken. And it is true that I, too, play the lotteries. I also hope to win. But you know, if I believed that I could not win, I would not play. So, what does that suggest about my beliefs (even though I actually do know the odds)? Beliefs can, in fact, be much stronger than knowledge, for reasons that are so completely human. It's funny, but it's also a bit endearing sometimes -- as long as it doesn't get destructive!

Another point about my original post. I said "I am an atheist because I think." Someone I know told me that was pretty arrogant, and that many intelligent, thinking people believe in a deity.

For my comment, then, I must apologize, because of course there are intelligent people on this forum who also believe in a deity. My thought perhaps didn't read as well as it could, and I can see how it looks.

Ah, well, this is a work in progress, and I'm open to change. Still, I did not mean that believers don't think and atheists do. I meant that I have always spent a lot of time thinking, and every avenue of thought that I traversed led me to a different conclusion than the vast majority of other people.

Still, I wonder sometimes if it isn't true that most people don't really spend a lot of time and effort really thinking about the things that they take for granted, and if they actually did stop and examine more closely, they might arrive at different conclusions. This might be especially true, not so much for belief in god, but for rigid adherence to the particular dogmas of most formal religions. It would still be possible, I think, to believe in god and the message of Christ without believing that Mary was a virgin, that water turned into wine, or that the dead got out of their graves and wandered around town, and nobody thought to actually write a memo about it. Or that Jesus actually and literally died for our sins.

Thank you for sharing your story and your feelings. A very honest, thoughtful and even passionate review of your personal history regarding where you are an how you came to be there. As a believer, I do not share your final view, but I see nothing that would threaten my personal belief. Certainly, I am in no position to judge you for your conclusions.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No more a threat than me expiring here on this earth and finding the Spaghetti Monster.

I'm going to call that just a tiny bit disingenuous. Finding the "Spaghetti Monster" has no downside, since (as I understand from those who write about such things) he's not into punishment. And that's the point about "when you die, it's too late." Well, if there's nothing to fear, then too late has no meaning. Too late is only of interest if there's a consequence, which is always at the root of your thinking.

Or... you just don't want to consider a third possibility, that my reasonings are correct or a fourth, God honors your free will... I'm sure there are others than just your two or my additions.

I consider all well-argued possibilities, but we are just going to have to deal with the fact that verses written in the Bible are never going to be axioms to me. We talked earlier about "the sins of the fathers" visited on their offspring, but David's sin was visited upon his child, who, according to the Bible (and therefore according to God's will) suffered for 7 days, and then died. What did that child do? And did David, or did he not, continue to live, and enjoy his life, his reign, his wives and concubines? I can consider nothing -- and I mean this in all honesty and from the bottom of my heart -- in the Bible to be something that I could possibly take as the axiomatic root of a logical argument. Not any more than I could from Homer or Tolkien or Elmore Leonard.

The idea that "God honors (my) free will" is neither here nor there, because my free will is informed only by what I know, by what information I have available to me, and how reliable that information seems to me. And as I've tried to point out many times, the only "information" that serves to differentiate us seems to be that you venerate the Bible over all things, and I venerate what I can see, learn or infer from evidence.

 

[Kenny]

I'm going to call that just a tiny bit disingenuous. Finding the "Spaghetti Monster" has no downside, since (as I understand from those who write about such things) he's not into punishment. And that's the point about "when you die, it's too late." Well, if there's nothing to fear, then too late has no meaning. Too late is only of interest if there's a consequence, which is always at the root of your thinking.

The context is " I am unshakeably of the opinion that anything I want to know, I'd better find out now". My response is "consider". In that it isn't an option, my statement hold true. If there is no God then, at my death, I simply don't wake up.

May God takes into account your past? (some hole onto that position). Maybe there is another chance after you die? (others hold to that position) Maybe there is no Hell? (there are those who believe that).

Regardless, when we die, everyone will find out. It's a truth and not a threat.

I consider all well-argued possibilities, but we are just going to have to deal with the fact that verses written in the Bible are never going to be axioms to me. We talked earlier about "the sins of the fathers" visited on their offspring, but David's sin was visited upon his child, who, according to the Bible (and therefore according to God's will) suffered for 7 days, and then died. What did that child do? And did David, or did he not, continue to live, and enjoy his life, his reign, his wives and concubines? I can consider nothing -- and I mean this in all honesty and from the bottom of my heart -- in the Bible to be something that I could possibly take as the axiomatic root of a logical argument. Not any more than I could from Homer or Tolkien or Elmore Leonard.

Well... your position isn't well argued, IMV.

As I see it, you are viewing it in this fashion, "let me find anything to support my position regardless if Ken shows different". I showed it differently with the Kings but it is thrown to the side because it is irrelevant to your position. (not well argued on your side).

then I gave you supportive documentation to wit:

"The third and the fourth generation. This is a typical Semitic phrase denoting continuity, not to be understood in an arithmetical sense. Further, it is applied to those who ‘hate’ God, who refuse to live their lives in accordance with his will. Since this is God’s world, and since we are all involved with one another, breaches of God’s law by one generation do indeed affect those of future generations to come. Slavery, exploitation, imperialism, pollution, immorality are all examples of this principle. What we call ‘natural results’ are just an expression of God’s law in operation, punishing breaches of his will."

Cole, R. A. (1973). Exodus: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 2, p. 164). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

1. your position suggests that between 7 days on earth with suffering vs eternity with God with no suffering - this earth has a great weight than eternity - as if the child is suffering
2. "Natural results are just an expression of God's law in operation" - is ignored. What you do DOES affect the next generation but not as a punishment but rather God's law in operation. (In this case "God is not mocked, whatever a man sows, so shall he reap...". Like gravity, it is just a law in operation
3. Your position suggests that adultery and murder should be recompensed with a beautiful marriage and a son.

So we differ in positions.

"And did David, or did he not, continue to live, and enjoy his life, his reign, his wives and concubines?: no

" I can consider nothing -- and I mean this in all honesty and from the bottom of my heart -- in the Bible to be something that I could possibly take as the axiomatic root of a logical argument. Not any more than I could from Homer or Tolkien or Elmore Leonard" Understand your position, don't agree with its methodology or conclusion.

The idea that "God honors (my) free will" is neither here nor there, because my free will is informed only by what I know, by what information I have available to me, and how reliable that information seems to me. And as I've tried to point out many times, the only "information" that serves to differentiate us seems to be that you venerate the Bible over all things, and I venerate what I can see, learn or infer from evidence.

That, IMV, is a victim mentality. It is not "informed only by what I know" but rather how one chooses to accept or not accept what information is available to you. What you "learn or infer from evidence" is very arbitrary and a free will choice.

Example:

If god is omnipotent, then Satan must be nothing by comparison. Infinity is infinitely greater than anything finite. Therefore, Satan could hold no sway – there cannot be two omnipotent entities in a single universe – by definition – since both would be unable to best the other – a clear failure in the definition of omnipotence. Thus, if god exists and moves in the world, then he’s responsible for it all, including how ludicrously unfair it is.

That position is filled with free will. If A God is > than B (Satan) does not mean C God is responsible for all. That is your free will interpretation but hardly logical because it forgets D (man), E (free will), F (who the earth belongs to).


What it does appear is that you have a position and you therefore judge everything through that position no matter what other factors there are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@KenS , if there is no God and when we die that it it, then we will never know.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

@KenS , if there is no God and when we die that it it, then we will never know.

There's still a third option which is:

1). There's an afterlife.
2). The qualifications for getting there aren't covered in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's still a third option which is:

1). There's an afterlife.
2). The qualifications for getting there aren't covered in the Bible.

True, there could be even more than I can think of right now. But thank you. I did not wish to imply a false dichotomy.

Personally I opt for the Pastafarian heaven. If one is going to believe in a deity one should always check out what the deity is offering.

 

[HonestJoe]

But surely this is what you might expect me, raised in an almost exclusively Abrahamic religion world (Christianity, Judaism, Islam....and I include Baha'i). It is usually unwise to make deep analytical statements about beliefs you are unfamiliar with (though many do).

Oh, I totally agree with you and again, I have no issue with what you actually wrote. My criticism is exclusively over the choice of title, as part of a wider issue I have with how people talk about beliefs and use the word atheism, especially on places like this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interesting how people arrive to different conclusions.

That.
VERY interesting indeed, how millions of people can come to thousands upon thousands of different religious conclusion - yet NOT ONCE does the same conclusion popup twice independently from one another.

The ONLY way someone can conclude "Jesus" for example, is if somebody else tells them about Jesus (and picking up a bible and reading it, is the equivalent of someone else telling you about Jesus).

Even more interesting how the opposite is the case when it comes to natural / scientific explanations of the world around us and the phenomena found therein.

For example, people don't come up with thousands of different "conclusions" about gravity.
And people DO and DID come up with the same conclusions independently from one another.


I consider such to be very very strong evidence that religions are made up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why I Am an Atheist?

How could one subscribe to Atheism, when any ignorant person can subscribe to it, please?
Regards

One does not "subscribe" to atheism.

One can only "subscribe" to theism.
One has to actually do something to be a theist: one has to believe certain things, perhaps engage in certain rituals, etc.

NOT doing those things, defaults you to atheism.

You don't need to do or believe something to be an atheist.
There is nothing there to "subscribe" to.

Theism is what wants your subscription.
Atheism is what you default to when you do not subscribe to theism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is correct. Your belief and my beliefs are different and your declaring that Christians are wrong doesn't make you right even as me declaring that you are wrong doesn't make me right.

But it is certainly right to say that there are no valid, rational reasons to believe christianity is right.

Although it is overused, there is still some truth to what is said and that being, "When we die, we will find out everything".

Or not, off course.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes we do - and, yet we agree, "I'd better find out now, because when I die, it will be too later".

Maybe you should consider my position without getting extreme on the comments?

Why?


How much time in your life have you spend pondering the implication of dying while NOT beliving in Thor and Odin? While NOT being a muslim? While NOT being a hindu? While NOT having coins placed on your eyes to give to the boatman so that you can cross the river Styx? While NOT being in touch with your inner thetan , going through dianetics and signing a billion year contract to fight Lord Xenu alongside the other scientologists? Or that you might be following a heretic version of christianity by choosing the wrong denomination? Or... <insert implications of not being a follower of ANY of the THOUSANDS of religions known to human kind>?

Or how much have you worried about being eaten by the undetectable 7-headed extra-dimensional dragon that follows you around everywhere you go?


I'm gonna go ahead and assume that your answers to all these questions is "not much time or none at all".
Why would I have to ponder your particular religion of choice or geographic accident?
What's so special about your religion, other then you happen to believing it?

I see no reason at all to ponder any faith based claims.


Threats of hell or other unpleasentness "after I die" are about as impressive to me as threatening me with an invisible giant rock that supposedly blocks my lane on the highway.

I will not slam my breaks.
I will not change lanes.
I will just drive on and, at best, give you a look with one eyebrow raised slightly.