Why am I an atheist?

That explains why you are not CHRISTIAN, but religion and Christianity are not synonymous, and people were worshiping fire in ancient caves way before Christ was born.

I don't bow before a book, surrender my free will, or believe that the universe was created in 7 days, but I am religious. Just my .02 worth.

I can see you point on everything but #6... It may very well be built on fear but, not fear of God as much as fear of death.

Which in an odd way, gives credence to the exsistence of God.. From the beginning of recorded history man has never been able to come to grips with absolute death. A good scientist must ask the question....Why????

It's the one piece of proof, that ways heavily that the possibility of a God, or another dimension, or something may exsist. Very Weird, and very thought provoking if you remove the religion from the equation.....

Why do I believe in a god after being an atheist my entire life?

Because it felt too arrogant not to.

I get where you're coming from, I think. I felt that way for a long, long time. But I don't know, something changed. I got humble. I figured it was too arrogant to assume that we, humans, are the highest beings. That we're the most intelligent, understand the most, that there's nothing above us.

That said, no organised religion for me, thanks. I'm content with not knowing what or who the higher power (or powers, I suppose) is, just believing that maybe I'm not it.

*Shrugs*

Just Jack said:

1. I do not believe in god mainly because almost all religon requires that you "surrender" to god. I will not surrender my individualism and my freedome to a figure which, in my eyes, does not exist.

Click to expand...

Pope Benedict said something about this on his recent trip, something about how true freedom was only to be found in surrendering to God's authority. Sounded a bit Orwellian to me.

2.. . .I personally believe that religon was created at a time when humanity was on the brink of chaos, and so the people needed something to guide them in the right direction, i.e. religon.

Click to expand...

Mankind has had some concept of religion ever since language developed, and even before for all we know.

3. I do not need a 2000 year old book to decide what is right and wrong for me. I can do that myself.

Click to expand...

Where does this knowledge of right and wrong come from? Is is coded in your genetics? The very concept of moral behavior comes originally from religion.

4. Absolute faith has rules, therefore it takes away personal choice in freedom. To me, god is just a pair of handcuffs.

Click to expand...

Absolute freedom is just the law of the jungle. Animals do not distinguish right from wrong. Whenever a society forms, there must necessarily be rues in order for it to survive.

5. Faith in such an absolute being, in a being who wields absolute power over the entire universe, seems dangerous to me.

Click to expand...

If such a being were like the Greek and Roman Gods, prey to human jealousies and desires, you would be right. But our modern concept of God involves not only ultimate power, but ultimate knowledge and compassion as well.

6. Religon is built on fear. Why should you do what god says? So you dont go to hell, of course. If religon did not acknowledge that there was a hell, there would be a lot more atheists out there.

Click to expand...

Some are, some aren't. A rabbi once told me he kept kosher and obeyed Shabbot rules because that's what God wanted him to do. What happens if you don't, I asked. His reply? Well, I imagine He'd be disappointed in me.

It's easy to look at specific religious practices and to find them illogical. It's easy to look at shallow conceptions of God as an old man with a white beard and find that ridiculous. But the true idea of God is a deep and complex concept that people have wrestled with for ages, and whether or not it ultimately proves convincing to you, it's worth some serious consideration beyond surface superficialities.

Now if you want to argue whether religion has had an overall beneficial influence on mankind, that's a very different proposition.

Funny I really don't see it as a choice. I spent about three days trying very hard to believe in god because an eternal afterlife sounded like a good deal to me. But I just don't. That's not about logic, or ethics, or how I was raised. That's just how I'm wired.

I think that Just Jack is preaching against a monotheistic god, not religion. Religion was probably not based on fear, upon keeping track of and celebrating the changing seasons and lunar cycles. If you don't pay attention to the world around you and you are a hunter gatherer, a shepard or a farmer, you will find that you go hungry very soon.

Since the human mind is wired to see patterns and to develop ways to understand things, the sun/moon/earth/local well/mountain became sacred. Sometimes people gave these things personification. The moon became a Goddess, the sun, a God. Stories were told about how they acted and reacted to people and each other.

A set of laws are rules were set up so that humans could live in communities together, hunt or farm together, raise children or trade with other tribes. Stories about the past, about origins, about the future and other cosmic things were shared and passed on as a way to pass on traditions and ethical codes.

The problem with religions is when these stories become entrenched and are taken literally rather than as cultural lessons.

I have to say that I tend to get a bit annoyed at people who either believe in God or don't, but who insist that ancient people created religions because they were ignorant and fearful. If we're so darn enlightened, how come we are constantly at war and why are we destroying the planet? We don't need a god to have an ethical system and it would be a fine thing is we all got together – those of various religious traditions and those of no religion – to fix these problems. Eh?

StephanieFox said:

I have to say that I tend to get a bit annoyed at people who either believe in God or don't, but who insist that ancient people created religions because they were ignorant and fearful. If we're so darn enlightened, how come we are constantly at war and why are we destroying the planet? We don't need a god to have an ethical system and it would be a fine thing is we all got together – those of various religious traditions and those of no religion – to fix these problems. Eh?

Click to expand...

I agree.

I wasn't making a case either for or against belief, only expressing my opinion that religious experience is a varied and complex subject, worthy of serious examination whether you are a believer or not.

But ultimately, to paraphrase Veinglory, it comes down to faith. Or not.

may I interject a thought?

If I may, as a one-time rebel against the concept of religion, interject one thought into this discussion...

Pascal had an interesting wager...the main idea being: If you, for whatever reason, do not believe in God and he doesn't exist then fine, but if you happen to be wrong and God is real and he has come down from heaven and become a sacrifice to cleanse you of your sins and then given a bible for you to have that knowledge so you can believe it and be saved and people who try to share that knowledge who've experienced that salvation, etc...

and then you don't believe...

then if that turned out to be the case...you would have gambled with your eternal soul and lost.

The concept of a j.o.b. is interesting too...to get a reward you must usually surrender a certain amount of freedom, conform to certain ideals or there are consequences...ie you don't make any money.
Are you willing to surrender certain freedom of "doing it your way" to make a living? If yes, then perhaps others aren't so "crazy" for a willingness to surrender to the Creator of the Universe in order to receive mercy, forgiveness, acceptance, love and eternal life...if you believe in that sort of thing, of course....

Some don't...but as Pascal put it...what if you're wrong?

humbly submitted for mulling over,
James

Pascal's wager presents a false dichotomy. Either there is a god who will punish you for not believing in him, or there is nothing.

Maybe there's a god who's compassionate and understanding enough to realize that he created certain people who would be predisposed towards atheism, and then he didn't give them enough evidence to make them believers in him, so he can hardly blame them for their skepticism.

Maybe there's a god who just doesn't care who believes or who doesn't, just as I don't care if the ant on the sidewalk acknowledges my existence or not (I would care if it was an army ant ready to sting me, but we'll assume it's one of those tiny inoffensive ants).

Maybe there's a god who's testing people to see which ones go to Planet Atheist after they die and which ones go to Planet Theist.

Maybe there's a whole bunch of gods, and atheists end up in the heaven supervised by the most liberal of them all.

I could go on and on, but that's one reason Pascal's Wager doesn't work for me.

What if I'm wrong? At least I'll have enjoyed my life (I didn't enjoy it as a born-again Christian) and I'll know that I made the only possible, logical and rational decision for myself based on the evidence I had. And I didn't give in to what seems more like a scare tactic than actual reasoning.

james1611 said:

Some don't...but as Pascal put it...what if you're wrong?

humbly submitted for mulling over,
James

Click to expand...

I'll take my chances. From all the evidence I'm aware of, we get just one life here on earth. I'd rather face it authentically, and value it deeply because it's all I get, than delude myself that I'm going to live forever and that better things will come when I finally kark it.

That's what's authentic to me, as an atheist. I've no desire to live forever, nor do I have any need to believe than some all powerful universal creator loves me. I have enough love right here on earth, from real live people.

I am lucky, however, to get my own blink of consciousness in this vast universe and I want to appreciate the reality of it rather than muck it up with unfounded beliefs.

Queen of Swords said:

Pascal's wager presents a false dichotomy. Either there is a god who will punish you for not believing in him, or there is nothing.

Maybe there's a god who's compassionate and understanding enough to realize that he created certain people who would be predisposed towards atheism, and then he didn't give them enough evidence to make them believers in him, so he can hardly blame them for their skepticism.

Click to expand...

Very well put, Queen. If he'd blame and punish them for living their lives authentically based on the way he created them in the first place, then he's certainly not worthy of anyone's worship.

rugcat said:

Where does this knowledge of right and wrong come from? Is is coded in your genetics? The very concept of moral behavior comes originally from religion.

Click to expand...

False. There is in fact good evidence that moral behavior was evolved. Chimpanzees and other apes do display a certain kind of 'moral' behavior, in that they can recognize when they are being treated unfairly compared other chimpanzees. A sense of fairness is a moral characteristic.

Also, if you look at some non-primates, such as dolphins and Orcas, you will find complex behaviors that approximate 'moral' behavior. What do these animals have in common with primates? Large brains and complex social groups.

Morality is behavior that is developed among intelligent, social animals to allow them to get along with each other. Religion endorses morality. It did not invent it. No religion today is so old that we cannot point out an earlier group of people who knew the difference versus right and wrong. Morality existed long before religion. Even before language, even before humans.

The idea that religion created morality is totally unsupported. People might point to the ten commandments and such, but of course I can always point to people before them who knew quite well that murder and theft were wrong.

It is no more 'arrogant' not to believe in god than it is 'arrogant' not to believe the earth is flat. Both are obsolete ideas that were developed by people out of ignorance. That religion survives while the concept of the flat earth is nearly extinct is because religion is a self-perpetuating social system that is quite useful to control people and make money. Flat earth theory isn't, so its dying out.

in some ways the religion of the Ancient Greeks encouraged immorality, by modern standards: showing the Gods to be envious and vengeful at times. Life was harder back then, though, so I guess people had to be rugged and tough to survive and in need of warrior-like, thunder-weilding deities to see them through. With this economic recession, coming on, Zeus and Pallas may be makin' a return

james1611 said:

Pascal had an interesting wager...
...but as Pascal put it...what if you're wrong?

humbly submitted for mulling over,
James

Click to expand...

So James, did you accept Pascal's wager and become Muslim?

I have a book which lists over 1000 gods you could choose to Worship.

You aren't honestly saying that you chose the particular god to worship based on Pascal's wager .. did you ?

Mac

Just Jack said:

Morality is something that is learned both through your parents and through experience.
...

Click to expand...

Isn't the cocept of "morality" basically a religious one? Something invented to keep people at bay?

Melisande said:

Isn't the cocept of "morality" basically a religious one? Something invented to keep people at bay?

Click to expand...

I think that some form of morality is a prerequisite of culture, Melisande. Among the things that hold culture together and perpetuate it is sacrifice of one's short-term desires for long term benefit and common good. Morality is in part about understanding what that those things are, and in part, agreeing that they must weigh against our short-term desires.

People accept morality for many reasons, including a desire to belong, a fear of retribution, faith in the future and a compassion for their fellows. The mix varies from person to person. But there are many opportunities in daily life where we could perform acts of short-term benefit to ourselves that do long-term harm to ourselves or others - yet much of the time, we don't. There are also many times when it costs us to benefit another or invest in the future of our culture, yet we still do it.

james1611 said:

If I may, as a one-time rebel against the concept of religion, interject one thought into this discussion...

Pascal had an interesting wager...the main idea being: If you, for whatever reason, do not believe in God and he doesn't exist then fine, but if you happen to be wrong and God is real and he has come down from heaven and become a sacrifice to cleanse you of your sins and then given a bible for you to have that knowledge so you can believe it and be saved and people who try to share that knowledge who've experienced that salvation, etc...

and then you don't believe...

then if that turned out to be the case...you would have gambled with your eternal soul and lost.

The concept of a j.o.b. is interesting too...to get a reward you must usually surrender a certain amount of freedom, conform to certain ideals or there are consequences...ie you don't make any money.
Are you willing to surrender certain freedom of "doing it your way" to make a living? If yes, then perhaps others aren't so "crazy" for a willingness to surrender to the Creator of the Universe in order to receive mercy, forgiveness, acceptance, love and eternal life...if you believe in that sort of thing, of course....

Some don't...but as Pascal put it...what if you're wrong?

humbly submitted for mulling over,
James

Click to expand...

i've heard this one. It's been used against atheists and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. It's the big argument from a religion whose God threatens with eternial torment those whose ideas (not their actions) are what this God considers 'wrong.'

Yet this same god hides his message in a book with a number of contidictions and translations. What is you've read the wrong book? What if you read the wrong part and didn't understand what the (hell) he's trying to tell you. What is the minister you trusted was wrong? Will you suffer, too?

Then, there's the concept of faith. Faith is believing in something without needing proof. But what if you cannot do that? What if the way this god has created your brain, you simply cannot believe? What if you believe something else?

And, other than trying to keep this god from beating me up forever and ever for NOT believing him and his particular story, why should I worship such a being? He sounds arbitrary and mean. Not my cup of tea, if you don't mind.

I'll answer your question with a question: If I'm wrong, you say I'll suffer. I ask you, if you are wrong, haven't you wasted your life? (This is just a phylisophical question, jst like yours.)

By the way, I'm not rebelling, as you put it, against your religion. That term is another christian buzz word. I simply just don't believe in your god.

-And of course, for some reason, religion feels like looking up to an imaginary role model: perfect in every way in your eyes, and you strive to be like him/her.
-Faith is something that I can't do. I've dealt with too much people (including a scam agency) to now fully trust a being that hasn't been truly seen ever, and to follow the teachings of "God" written by a man. Because we all know that the earth was made in seven days, but the creations stopped there for him.

I've wasted my life as much as I've suffered, so I don't think that it's impossible to recover from it.

I have philosophical as opposed to spiritual reasons for opposing atheism, but I also oppose any form of religion.

I'm what I call an agnostic atheist, in that I tend to agree with atheism, however my issue comes from falsifiability. Essentially you can't really prove anything to be true, but you can prove things to be false. Religion unfortunately largely falls into this category, including atheism.

So in essence, I'm saying that I strongly believe that evidence supports atheism, however because I can't falsify all notions of a god, I can't completely discount the existence of a deity.

Now that I've said my two cents, let me put my flame resistance underwear on, and get a bucket of water, because I sense a bit of a flaming in my future.

Its not about proving anything. How many things in life are proven? Its about drawing reasonable conclusions based on the evidence at hand. It is simply neither reasonable nor practical to not discount something simply because it hasnt been disproven.

There are plenty of things more likely than god that we nevertheless ignore when going about our daily business.

There is no reason to give religious beliefs the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't give to other ideas.

Was that too hot for you?

My take on the matter :

Leprechaunist : You should believe in leprechauns.
Me : Why?
Leprechaunist : Because you have no evidence that they don't exist, and because you can't falsify my claim that they do exist somewhere and in some form.
Me : I assign claims a probability ranging from one to zero. So for instance, the probability of a square triangle existing is zero. Without evidence of any kind for their existence, the probability that leprechauns exist is so close to zero that for all intents and purposes, it's insignificant. I no more need to concern myself with the existence of leprechauns that I do with the existence of square triangles. That's what makes me an aleprechaunist.

Dommo said:

I have philosophical as opposed to spiritual reasons for opposing atheism, but I also oppose any form of religion.

I'm what I call an agnostic atheist, in that I tend to agree with atheism, however my issue comes from falsifiability. Essentially you can't really prove anything to be true, but you can prove things to be false. Religion unfortunately largely falls into this category, including atheism.

So in essence, I'm saying that I strongly believe that evidence supports atheism, however because I can't falsify all notions of a god, I can't completely discount the existence of a deity.

Now that I've said my two cents, let me put my flame resistance underwear on, and get a bucket of water, because I sense a bit of a flaming in my future.

Click to expand...

I'm not an atheist, but I don't see God's non-existence as problematic: clearly by every rational measure, God does not exist.

Or to put it another way: if you were omnipresent, wouldn't you at least occasionally be somewhere?
Or: One does not achieve omnipresence by never being anywhere.
The bit about "non-provable" seems to me to verge on pure nonsense.
We aren't obligated to present certificates that we have searched every corner of every possible universe for all time every time we assert that
a certain set of circumstances has not occurred and the notion that such certification is required -- as I've said -- verges on absolute nonsense.

In this subforum in another thread I wrote:
"If no one has ever seen even a trace of what is supposedly the most omnipresent thing that can be defined, then the very definition of the being in question ceases to have any plausibility. You cannot look for something that cannot be described. This is far more true than any possible fact or proof: an ominpresent thing that has never been anywhere is nowhere to be found. This is far, far less existential plausibility than simply not being somewhere, it is equivalent to never having been anywhere ever in any way at all.

Or to put it another way, since the absolute nature of the claim of God's existence would require that he is everywhere all the time, even one case of his non-appearance serves as an indicator of plausibility that is far more negative than a matter of mere fact or proof."

And I still think that is worth thinking about.