Your reasoning behind atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-05-2012, 12:24 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
To call it a "fork in the road" would imply equal weight or reason to believe in god or no god.
The default position for anyone not exposed to religion would be atheism; therefore, atheism is the road.
Religion is a side road or the woods or the swamp. You have to decide to alter your path off the road.
Many reject religious beliefs later and "get back on the road of truth".

If just based on Reasoning it's clear:
"It is not reasonable to believe something based on no supporting evidence."
"It is reasonable not to believe something based on no supporting evidence."

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 12:31 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
(07-05-2012 12:24 PM)Thomas Wrote:  To call it a "fork in the road" would imply equal weight or reason to believe in god or no god.
The default position for anyone not exposed to religion would be atheism; therefore, atheism is the road.
Religion is a side road or the woods or the swamp. You have to decide to alter your path off the road.
Many reject religious beliefs later and "get back on the road of truth".

If just based on Reasoning it's clear:
"It is not reasonable to believe something based on no supporting evidence."
"It is reasonable not to believe something based on no supporting evidence."
@Lilith as well

This, again, is a belief based on evidence; not proof. That's what I'm saying.

You believe because of where the evidence points not where absolute proof is - as absolute proof is unobtainable.

A lack of belief demonstrates a "belief system" founded on the evidence of nothing. The evidence that is presented to you is enough conviction to enforce a lack of belief.

Nothing can't exist. There is always something. The lack of belief is something. It's a belief system that doesn't embrace the supernatural. I know this is a semantic issue, but it is something worth addressing.

Yes, atheism is a lack of belief; however, that is still a belief.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 12:37 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
You don't call aunicornism a belief. Most of my life this "important issue" had no bearing whatsoever. The only time it came up was in dealing with others. For my personal life I rarely asked the whole god this god that. For some early years I tried to get some sort of further rationalization, but I quickly got to the point where the whole point was moot.
As I said a belief is something positive or negative, not neutral. The stance that what is understood exists exists is simply neutral. It is negative to claim an impossibility and positive to view a possibility as true, but not claiming anything is neutral/

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lilith Pride's post
07-05-2012, 12:38 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
I can give you a couple of examples of my reasoning behind atheism:

1. How can something that is supposed to be "perfect" i.e. "God" be described by something "imperfect" i.e. human. It was human hand that created the bible and wrote down the supposed word of God (if we use Christianity as an example). Something imperfect cannot talk about something that is perfect because imperfection cannot grasp what perfect. Flaws stop imperfection from grasping what is flaweless i.e. perfection.

2. Trying to say "Well how do you know God does not exist?" is just like saying "Well how do you know that the tooth fairy, santa claus, leprechans, the invisible spaghetti monster etc does not exist?"

3. Some people would pray to their god for their special someone to get better in hospital, and when they do, they thank their god, well how about the doctors and nurses that actually did the work and physically made that patient better. If they pray to god to make this person better and thank him afterwards, then why take that person to the doctors instead? By thanking god when someone is better takes away all the dignity and respect that the doctors actually deserve instead seeing that it is they that physically cured the patient one way or another. And if they then state that it was this god acting through the doctors, then that is taking away all responsibility from the doctors themselves. Although if the doctor's make one mistake, then the relatives/patient involved certainly would not hestitate in taking that doctor to court for compensation. Yeah, in that case, the doctor has responsibility then because it would not certainly be god in this instance that would hurt that person (even though if god creates and controls everything would have thus put that patient in ill health in the first place!) This contradiction in religion is one of many more types of contradictions that come about.

Quote:"Religion poisons everything." - Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stefania's post
07-05-2012, 12:47 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
(07-05-2012 12:37 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You don't call aunicornism a belief. Most of my life this "important issue" had no bearing whatsoever. The only time it came up was in dealing with others. For my personal life I rarely asked the whole god this god that. For some early years I tried to get some sort of further rationalization, but I quickly got to the point where the whole point was moot.
As I said a belief is something positive or negative, not neutral. The stance that what is understood exists exists is simply neutral. It is negative to claim an impossibility and positive to view a possibility as true, but not claiming anything is neutral/
But, having a neutral position is a position, isn't it?

I mean, just because you don't have a position doesn't mean that position doesn't exist.

After all, aunicornism didn't exist nor did your position until you mentioned it. Now, it exists, and you have a position towards it. This can go on ad infinitum. Your knowledge or awareness of a position does not necessitate its existence.

The positions exists. Your lack of belief towards them (regardless of your ignorance) does necessitate a belief towards that position. You either believe it, don't believe, or have no belief on it; however, those are all beliefs.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 12:57 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
(07-05-2012 12:47 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(07-05-2012 12:37 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You don't call aunicornism a belief. Most of my life this "important issue" had no bearing whatsoever. The only time it came up was in dealing with others. For my personal life I rarely asked the whole god this god that. For some early years I tried to get some sort of further rationalization, but I quickly got to the point where the whole point was moot.
As I said a belief is something positive or negative, not neutral. The stance that what is understood exists exists is simply neutral. It is negative to claim an impossibility and positive to view a possibility as true, but not claiming anything is neutral/
But, having a neutral position is a position, isn't it?

I mean, just because you don't have a position doesn't mean that position doesn't exist.

After all, aunicornism didn't exist nor did your position until you mentioned it. Now, it exists, and you have a position towards it. This can go on ad infinitum. Your knowledge or awareness of a position does not necessitate its existence.

The positions exists. Your lack of belief towards them (regardless of your ignorance) does necessitate a belief towards that position. You either believe it, don't believe, or have no belief on it; however, those are all beliefs.
You're twisting logic in circles. The only reasonable position for something with no proof of existence is nonexistence.
You can chose "not to believe in man-made global warming" for example, because there is evidence to support that claim.
This is not the same as not believing in a god, where there is no evidence to discuss.
Logically I cannot prove that I am not just a brain in a jar or living in the matrix, but it is rational for me to dismiss these claims.
Therefore, it is rational for me to dismiss the claim of god, and it is irrational for me to hold the belief in god, living in the matrix, or a brain in a jar. They are all three the same irrational position.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thomas's post
07-05-2012, 01:10 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
(07-05-2012 09:40 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  The decision whether you're a theist or an atheist is based on the concept of faith.

Since God cannot be empirically proved or disproved, a personal takes the evidence in their life and forms a belief based on partial evidence (as full evidence can never be accomplished as that would require omniscience).

I think the reasoning behind any belief is how you interpret faith combined with the evidence presented to you.
The decision whether A THEIST (that's you Kingsy) is a theist or an atheist is based on the concept of faith.


The decision whether AN ATHEIST (I ain't sayin' who) is a theist or an atheist is not based on the concept of faith, rather based on many other reasoned out concepts that the OP is wanting feedback on.

Now, get off my lawn you kids. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 01:38 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
(07-05-2012 04:42 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's quite true that the reasoning behind Christianity (or any religion) could appeal to you and be true on its own merits, but do you want to give every religion the benefit of its own doubt? Some of us value rationality and logic, and the logical stance --- when faced with two decisions that don't compel you one way or the other --- is skepticism. Skepticism is a non-answer, a way of saying "I don't have sufficient information or the information that I have doesn't tell me enough to make a choice".

Many of us are skeptical atheists. We don't say "no god or gods exist" because, as many scientists and philosophers have made clear, you can't prove that. It's what's known as a "negative argument", and you can't prove a negative. Try proving that Zeus, for example, doesn't exist. There's good reason to be skeptical of his existence, but any argument that you make about Zeus (he doesn't interact with us) can be explained away by an apologist for Zeus (his ways are mysterious, though visible if you presuppose that Zeus exists and you look for his acts).

You don't have to believe that the bible is absurd or believe that you have proof of God's non-existence to be an atheist --- these are false dilemmas. It's also a false dilemma to suggest that it has to be either Christianity or atheism. There are any number of beliefs you can choose, but until they have compelling evidence, non-belief is the rational stance.
It is basically an argument from ignorance, I agree. I also had a feeling some of you will point out that I focused on Christianity, but I did that purposely since that's the religion I was most exposed to. The only reason that I never mentioned other religions is because I don't know enough about them.

But the last statement you made was actually the nudge that I needed to turn to atheism I just forgot to mention it. Even though I believe atheism is more logical, I will not argue for it like its clear 100% fact. It's a theory just like gravity (which is also very, very logical).

My main criticism with arguments for a god is exactly like what you have mentioned; reasoning by the ambiguities of God's will. You can't justify the lack of empirical, physical evidence for any deity by using statements like, "God doesn't want to reveal himself because he works in mysterious ways." It's like their security net to win arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dxnguyen89's post
08-05-2012, 09:48 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
(07-05-2012 12:31 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(07-05-2012 12:24 PM)Thomas Wrote:  To call it a "fork in the road" would imply equal weight or reason to believe in god or no god.
The default position for anyone not exposed to religion would be atheism; therefore, atheism is the road.
Religion is a side road or the woods or the swamp. You have to decide to alter your path off the road.
Many reject religious beliefs later and "get back on the road of truth".

If just based on Reasoning it's clear:
"It is not reasonable to believe something based on no supporting evidence."
"It is reasonable not to believe something based on no supporting evidence."
@Lilith as well

This, again, is a belief based on evidence; not proof. That's what I'm saying.

You believe because of where the evidence points not where absolute proof is - as absolute proof is unobtainable.

A lack of belief demonstrates a "belief system" founded on the evidence of nothing. The evidence that is presented to you is enough conviction to enforce a lack of belief.

Nothing can't exist. There is always something. The lack of belief is something. It's a belief system that doesn't embrace the supernatural. I know this is a semantic issue, but it is something worth addressing.

Yes, atheism is a lack of belief; however, that is still a belief.
It really is impossible for you to wrap your head around the fact that their are people without faith that group together isn't it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 10:21 PM
RE: Your reasoning behind atheism
(07-05-2012 01:38 PM)dxnguyen89 Wrote:  But the last statement you made was actually the nudge that I needed to turn to atheism I just forgot to mention it. Even though I believe atheism is more logical, I will not argue for it like its clear 100% fact. It's a theory just like gravity (which is also very, very logical).
I appreciate your response to mine.

It's funny that you bring up the theory of gravity. "Theory", in this sense, doesn't mean "hypothetical" but rather "a system of explanation". But like any theory (or even "fact"), scientists are willing to discard them in light of new evidence. Probably in our lifetime we'll see a change to this theory... maybe not a total replacement but a better understanding, because quantum mechanics has punched so many holes in our current understanding of gravity. (Wikipedia is fine, but a more entertaining citation may be found at in a Cracked article , #1).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: