So why should I be an atheist?

[ILOVEJESUS]

Oh and I don't need to check every inch of the universe to not believe in Santa. Why should I have to do this to disbelieve in god? I mean if he is so powerful, loving and interested in my affections......where exactly is he and why can I not see him? Just like Santa by the way.

[Michael]

OnTheRazorsEdge wrote

First off, let me start by saying thank you to you and the others here for taking time to read my posts and to respond to my questions. Before starting this thread, I read through some other posts and I noted the discussions in those threads generally became, ah, heated. So I must admit, I half expected to get flamed immediately here for asking questions..

Nah, we only do that if we feel like you're being disingenuous. Or if we're hungry. Or Drunk.
Or if it's Tuesday.

And I hope you had a good shift at work.

It was alright. Too much time out in the sun filming cricket (stupid buggers couldn't get a wicket to save their lives), and there was a tip fire that was...interesting. Otherwise relatively quiet.

I don't think I agree with some of your statements here.

Oh dear. I think we're going to have a problem.





Nah, that's fine. noone said you had to.

So you're saying I don't have a choice in whether or not I believe in unicorns?

Well, I actually said you don't have a choice in whether or not you disbelieve in things. You can further infer from that a statement about choices in belief of any number of absurd things if you like.


Put bluntly - and more generally for you - Yes, that is basically the gist of it.

And I don't have a choice in whether or not to believe in gravity? I mean, a person would be foolish to believe in unicorns and not in gravity, but he/she could have those beliefs, right?

It's possible, sure. That would be weird, though. Maybe they think unicorns are responsible for pushing everything down? I don't know.

In your example above, it seems that you are saying that my belief in gravity one way or the other will alter the result. So if I don't believe in gravity and I walk off the table, I should hang in mid-air and if I do believe in gravity then I should fall.

Apologies if my example mixed you up - No, that is not what I was saying. Actually, my point was rather the opposite.

My point was that if you believe in gravity - which you seem to, thankfully - then you cannot step off the edge of a table and expect to end up standing in mid air. You know what is going to happen, and you expect it, regardless of what you tell yourself.

That is to say that no matter what you tell yourself, you cannot choose to not believe in gravity. The whole point was to demonstrate that people do no choose their beliefs.

Secondly, even if you didn't belive in gravity and stepped off the table, you'd still fall, as reality does not reflect our beliefs, no matter how tightly we cling to them. For that reason, we should do our absolute best to ensure our beliefs reflect reality.

But my belief won't change that outcome at all.

That is correct.

Let's consider the two of us for a minute. I believe in a god and you do not. One of our beliefs is accurate.

Not necessarily, the way you phrased it. What if the Hindu's are correct and there are multiple gods? Then we're both wrong.

That's one of the biggest problems I've noticed with theists - they fail to see the possibilities, so they end up believing the universe must fit into this or that view. If it doesn't fit into one, it MUST be the other.

But our beliefs themselves don't have any impact on what actually is. If you don't believe in a god and it turns out that is the correct view, your lack of belief didn't make it so.

Yep.

Apologies if I misconstrued the meaning of your example above. I'm not looking for reasons to decide to become an atheist. Rather, I just wanted to hear from you and others why atheism "works" for you. Like Simoon said in his earlier reply, he's heard a lot of arguments and none of them present a strong enough case.

I think you'll find most atheists are that way, honestly. At least the ones interested in engaging in debate.

I guess I've never thought of Santa as a "spiritual" being (magical, maybe).

Yeah, it's probably for the best that you don't, honestly.

But I see the point you are making with your analogy of the firmament. But I submit the idea of the "shifting goalposts" could be used against the atheist.

Only if the atheist makes a claim and then refuses to acknowledge evidence against it.

Someone in this thread, quite possibly Simoon again, said that the case for a god hasn't met the burden of proof. But couldn't we say the same of the atheist argument?

The atheist argument is that god hasn't met the burdon of proof. You're essentially asking us to prove that you haven't proven anything. It's nothing more than shifting the burdon of proof away from your argument.

It's on you to prove the existence of the thing you're claiming, not on us to disprove it.

I mean, if an atheist is going to deny the existence of a god, then he/she would have to have knowledge of every place in the universe to affirm that no god exists in any of those places.

Absolutely not. Nope. No.

This is nothing more than a shifting of the burdon of proof disguised as an argument from ignorance both of which are wrong.

Once again, it's not on use to prove that a god doesn't exist. It's not on us to show that it isn't there. It's on the person claiming it is there to show that. And if they don't, then there is no reason to believe that it is.

And like I said in my last post, which I think you said you agreed with - not knowing something does not equal god. So if we don't have knowledge of all things everywhere, that does not mean you get to slip your god in there by default.

Your post shows a cognitive dissonance. One the one hand you say -

And I agree; just because we don't know the answers doesn't mean that a god IS the answer.

but then you say

I mean, if an atheist is going to deny the existence of a god, then he/she would have to have knowledge of every place in the universe to affirm that no god exists in any of those places.

Not knowing means simply we don't know. If we haven't got knowledge of god in the things we do know, and we haven't got knowledge of god in the things we don't know, then we haven't got knowledge of god, full stop. Therefore we have no reason to believe in god. He might be there, but until we find reason to think that, we shouldn't.


Beyond that, those bits of knowledge of the universe don't exist in a vacuum. They exist relative to everything else - including the bits we DO know, that don't have anything to point to a god, or rather even point away from one.


Here's a good comic that illustrates the point I'm making, and addresses yours.
I should note that I didn't make this, but I do like to whip it out occasionally.

[Node18]

I'm going to use the Christian god in my example.
Consider this:

God created the universe, our hospitable planet and its atmosphere as well as life on Earth as we know it - which includes the creation of human beings along with the other wild animals. For god to have been able to accomplish such a fantastic feat he would have had to had the ability to literally create matter at will; if there was nothing before he created the "heavens" and the universe then it had to be done so in that way.

From our knowledge and practise of science we have concluded that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. For a being who possesses the ability to do so would mean, appropriately, that it is the most powerful and capable being in existence for the simple fact that it is able to bend existence itself. The fact that matter cannot be destroyed nor created doesn't made god seem extremely unlikely in and of itself rather if a being is capable of such it would mean that in times of peril, like natural disasters, it is able to intervene and stop such forces dead in its tracks, for example.

So, god possesses quite possibly the most powerful ability in the universe yet there is a devil? Yet he had to punish the first human beings? Nevermind the fact that if god was all-knowing he would KNOW exactly how susceptible to manipulation his own creations are. So instead of starting over, Adam and Eve 2.0 if you will, he has punished his creations. What a chap.

On the other hand if god is NOT capable of forming atoms at will then how did it manage to create the universe as well as life? I'll answer that for you: there is literally no other way you can create something out of nothing without having such abilities.

The story of these gods are poorly thought out and can only operate on the assumption that the believer is dumb as a sack of bricks.

This quote by Epicurus holds a lot more weight than it is credited for.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

[ghoulslime]

OnTheRazorsEdge wrote

I don't know; maybe you prefer deities who wield magical swords instead of magical hammers and you prefer dryads to pixies? ;-)

Please forgive my cheekiness, but my question isn't dealing with why people should or shouldn't dedicate themselves to a deity or set of deities. I'm just looking for arguments to convince me that I shouldn't believe in any sort of "higher power."

You seem to have missed the implied point of my post. We are atheists, not because that is our dogmatic goal, but because it is the result of an honest inquiry into the question of gods. We are atheists because there is no evidence of any gods.

The concept of gods is a human construct. It is the result of bewildered, ignorant apes trying to explain their existence, with very limited knowledge and cognitive prowess.

I would posit that you are also an atheist, at least to a certain degree. Do you believe that Thor is a real deity? How about Isis or Ganesh? Are there any gods that you think there is any credible evidence for?

We are not trying to convince you that there is not a higher power. There is simply no evidence for this assertion.

[Simoon]

OnTheRazorsEdge wrote

First off, let me start by saying thank you to you and the others here for taking time to read my posts and to respond to my questions. Before starting this thread, I read through some other posts and I noted the discussions in those threads generally became, ah, heated. So I must admit, I half expected to get flamed immediately here for asking questions.

Most of us here love honest discussion. I love to know what people believe and why they believe it. I want to know if their beliefs are justified.

Most theists that come here end up getting flamed because sooner of later, they end up showing their intellectual dishonesty.

I can find merits in all of the arguments that you listed but I think the cosmological argument is the one that seals the deal for me. What is it about that argument that irks you?

I'm not irked by the CA, it is just simply fallacious.

It contains the following fallacies:

Special pleading - asserts that anything that begins to exist needs a cause, except the god. Asserts, without evidence, that the god didn't begin to exist.
Equivocation - uses 2 different meanings for the term 'begins to exist'.
Fallacy of composition - because something is true of part of the universe, it must be true for the entire universe.
Affirms the consequent - a little harder to explain. But it smuggles the conclusion in the premise.

The above fallacies invalidate the modus ponens of the argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. And this is before we even get to the soundness of the premises.

Your answers to question 2, and particularly question 3, are very interesting to me. I admit that I had a preconceived notion that many atheists simply deny the existence of a god because they want their lives to be their own and they don't want to beholden to a "supreme being." So I admit I expected a lot of negative answers to question 3.

See, this is a perfect reason why you haven't gotten flamed. You seem to be able to correct your misconceptions.

Most theists (especially Christians) that come here have been told by their clergy that atheists 'deny' the existence of a god because we want to 'sin', or we want to be our own gods. And they refuse or are unable to understand our actual position.

For the vast majority of atheists, our atheism is merely an extension of skepticism. It is just applying the same methods to the god claim as we apply to the claims of UFO abductions, bigfoot, fairies, Ginn, etc, etc.

I look forward to further discussion.

[mondrian]

OnTheRazorsEdge wrote

What reason(s) would you give for being an atheist?


Thanks...

god didn't create man or anything else for that matter. Man created god:

1. To explain how the Universe came into being.

2. To control and exploit the masses.

3. To help man cope with his mortality.

As for 1), scientists are well on their way to explaining how the Universe came into being. They don't have all the answers, yet. But the rate at which progress is being made, they'll have most of them in my life time. The answers they already have indicate that god is no longer a requirement in the creation equation. How have the god squad reacted? By retreating and claiming that although god may not have actually created the universe, he created the scientific laws that created the universe. Well, correct me if I'm wrong but in the bible it says that god created the heavens and the Earth. It does not say that god created the physical laws which created the heaven and the earth. The bible is the word of god, we are told. So, did god lie when he said that he created the earth or is the bible a pile of shit that was created by man?

As for 2), religion has certainly exploited man, that's for sure. The church is one of the richest entities on earth. It has billions of dollars at its disposal. How did it become so wealthy? Through the exploitation of man. Does it not say in the bible that 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'. Well, in that case, none of the rich fuckers at the top of the religious hierarchy will be going to heaven.

Not only has the church/religion exploited man monetarily, it has also sexually exploited man, or to be more precise, little boys and protected the evil fuckers that have sexually abused.

More people have died in the name of jesus christ than for any other reason. Yet, religion preaches peace. So, how come an entity which preaches peace is so violent?

That just leaves us with god/religion helping man to cope with his own mortality.

Well, perhaps if we got rid of all of this god shit and religious bollocks, man could actually start to deal with this issue.

[Smellyoldgit]

mondrian wrote

.... god shit and religious bollocks ....

You just saved me typing an answer to a retarded question - thank you muchly.

[Davin]

It's true, and further proof exists in this image:

[Kinich Ahau]

It's Jesus riding a dinosaur?

[mondrian]

Kinich Ahau wrote

It's Jesus riding a dinosaur?

Yup - it's the 15:00 Plumpton yesterday where my selection, which was sent off the 7/4 favourite, failed to even place! (dances).

BTW - I'm posting selections again.

[Kinich Ahau]

Cool! I looked it up but they only had Plumpton races 1-4 on my site.

[Kinich Ahau]

Sorry, double off topic post.

[mondrian]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Cool! I looked it up but they only had Plumpton races 1-4 on my site.

I'll try for one of the early races today then.

[mondrian]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Sorry, double off topic post.

Oh fcuk. My fault. Will chastise myself, say 3 hail mary's and bugger a couple of choir boys.

[mondrian]

A queer choirmaster at King's
Had his mind on much better things
His secret desire
Was the boy in the choir
With a bum like jelly on springs.