Why in God's name are you an atheist?

[Yerda]

Well apparently I'm the most long-winded atheist here.

God, no. Haven't you read any of s2a's posts?

 

[Somkid]

Maybe they just don't feel the need to be sorry for living their life or feel the need to talk to the sky?

I don't understand and I would like to.

Sorry for what?

And what is in the sky?

 

[Fluffy]

As ever it depends on the definition of God. I have various strengths of atheism depending on the definition.

The Gods that I dismiss most strongly are those which I consider to be meaningless (strong omnipotence), logically inconsistent (supernaturalism) or semantically incorrect (naturalistic pantheism).

Next are those that are not supported by argument. An example would be believing in God because the believer wanted to believe in God. Another would be believing in God because of faith in scripture. This would include all the Gods that are currently held to exist by the mainstream religions.

Next are those that are supported by an argument that I consider weak. The so-called Philosopher's Gods. I am most open to having my mind changed in this area because I can always find new merit in an argument or new evidence to support a premise. Additionally, I feel that if I were to be converted, it would have to be a kind of God who was revealed to me in this way. Examples in this category would be the ontological God, the teleological God etc.

Finally, there is the God of whom I know nothing yet whose possibility of existence prevents me from rejecting entirely. Towards this God, I am not atheistic at all but agnostic. It is important that I don't know anything about it because, since I have no evidence and no reason to posit any attribute, any attribute I give it would make it less likely.

There might soon be a category that goes beyond this one derived from Plantinga's ontological argument. I'm still making up my mind.

 

[Camillus]

I think I've always been an atheist. I don't recall anytime in my life where I felt the presence of a divine spirit, even when I was strongly involved in an evangelical youth group as a child.

As I grew up the realisation that nature does not require a monitoring force in order to function and the high liklihood that the Universe is the result of natural events, rather than the act of a diety, further cemented my belief.

I also can't help feeling that if there is a god he/she/it wouldn't gamble the immortal souls of its creations on something as unreliable as the opinions of human beings about the rules for getting into heaven.

 

[crystalonyx]

I also can't help feeling that if there is a god he/she/it wouldn't gamble the immortal souls of its creations on something as unreliable as the opinions of human beings about the rules for getting into heaven.

I too feel this a great fallacy, as people have all kinds of mental problems, prejudices, and environmental factors that from the basis of their "belief" system. To assign someone to a supposed heaven or hell based upon "beliefs" would take a monster of immense proportions.

 

[Yerda]

I also can't help feeling that if there is a god he/she/it wouldn't gamble the immortal souls of its creations on something as unreliable as the opinions of human beings about the rules for getting into heaven.

I'm sure many deists think much the same. It's not a strong basis for atheism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I also can't help feeling that if there is a god he/she/it wouldn't gamble the immortal souls of its creations on something as unreliable as the opinions of human beings about the rules for getting into heaven.

This is anthropopathic projection and speaks only to perhaps the most immature caricature of theism.

 

[wednesday]

I don't understand and I would like to.

Sorry for what?

And what is in the sky?

Sinning, don't you confess (apologise for) your sins and thank God for how great your life is.

God is in the sky. If you watched southpark, they tried to build a ladder to heaven

 

[gnomon]

If you're an atheist, let me know why.

Two reasons.

I find no reasonable definition of God to be supported by any physical evidence which I can believe. I find the assertion of higher powers irrelevant to the natural world.

Second, the concept of God brings me no emotional fulfillment.

 

[rojse]

The concept of God brings me no emotional fulfillment.

Emotional fulfillment is not necessary for something to exist - think of all of the bills that you would have sitting at home.

 

[gnomon]

Emotional fulfillment is not necessary for something to exist - think of all of the bills that you would have sitting at home.

I know.

The correct term would actually be spiritual fulfillment but I am an atheist who also does not believe in a soul or any posited supernatural phenomena. So, I think it would be dishonest of me to state that a belief in a higher power does not bring me spiritual fulfillment.

 

[rojse]

I know.

The correct term would actually be spiritual fulfillment but I am an atheist who also does not believe in a soul or any posited supernatural phenomena. So, I think it would be dishonest of me to state that a belief in a higher power does not bring me spiritual fulfillment.

Whether you receive spiritual fulfillment or not from the existence, or non-existence of God, is not enough to categorically state that God does not exist.

 

[gnomon]

Whether you receive spiritual fulfillment or not from the existence, or non-existence of God, is not enough to categorically state that God does not exist.

True.

That's why I never made any such assertion.

 

[Camillus]

This is anthropopathic projection and speaks only to perhaps the most immature caricature of theism.

What you mean the immature version of theism used by every religion in the world?

Let's face it, the only theists who don't make claims that god is directly relevant to humans, and acting in some way acting in the world and through humans, are the ones who know that they have lost the intellectual arguments and are trying to throw sand in the eyes of the bull before they get skewered by one of the horns of the dilemma.

 

[s2a]

Well apparently I'm the most long-winded atheist here.

Don't you even dare to (attempt to) steal the chaotic thunder of my bombastic verbosity.

;-)

No one's postings blow harder than my own.

Accept that claim as an article of atheistic faith...or perish in a multi-part manifesto of 10,000 words or more...

 

[sindbad5]

If you're an atheist, let me know why.

yeah, me too.

i though the whole idea of atheism was more suitable in ages when science was immature,
when some brain-working humans were seeking for explanations that those fossilized-minds religious people can't provide.

but nowadays, the ages of freedom, no one can prevent any human from seeking the truth, almost the whole human knowledge become searchable and accessible.

i really love this age.

the science revealed lots of secrets that become enough to convince the mind that things in the world are too complex to be exists by a simplistic childish 1-dimension idea of coincidence.

in quran, allah says:
"And so amongst men and crawling creatures and cattle, are they of various colours. Those truly fear Allah, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for Allah is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving." [28][35 - Fatir]

 

[yossarian22]

the science revealed lots of secrets that become enough to convince the mind that things in the world are too complex to be exists by a simplistic childish 1-dimension idea of coincidence.

in quran, allah says:
"And so amongst men and crawling creatures and cattle, are they of various colours. Those truly fear Allah, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for Allah is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving." [28][35 - Fatir]

Ah, the not so subtle stench of irony

 

[rojse]

i though the whole idea of atheism was more suitable in ages when science was immature,

In the ages when science was immature, people thought thunder was from the gods. Surely the advancement of science would mean the exact opposite, where we can explain the world with more rationality.

 

[sindbad5]

Ah, the not so subtle stench of irony

i doubt i got what you mean?

 

[sindbad5]

In the ages when science was immature, people thought thunder was from the gods. Surely the advancement of science would mean the exact opposite, where we can explain the world with more rationality.

i mean, the ages in the last 2 centuries on the raise of the modern science,
the ages when Darwin said life came to existence as a coincidence, and then developed from a small amount of amino acid to us.