Why am I an atheist?

misterkel · May 3, 2008

Daimeera said:
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.

This is not arrogance, because there is no statement that humanity is the highest, merely that no God exists. Perhaps dolphins are more spiritually evolved than we are, and I put this forth in all seriousness. Dolphins don't kill each other, and nothing else kills them. They seem able to communicate with most life in the sea. Your argument is a bit weak, to me. You base your belief on the idea that not believing is somehow arrogant? If there is no God, it isn't arrogant to believe that. It's accurate.
Why wouldn't you want to base your beliefs on what seems real and leave it at that? Besides, just because there is no God, doesn't mean humans aren't pretty fucked up.

Mac H. · May 3, 2008

misterkel said:
Perhaps dolphins are more spiritually evolved than we are, and I put this forth in all seriousness. Dolphins don't kill each other, and nothing else kills them. They seem able to communicate with most life in the sea.

Where does this stuff come from ?

They may have a great public image, but Dolphins are carnivores. Not only that, in many places they are the Apex Predator. They aren't peaceful animals.

They beat each other up - basic aggression. They are even known to hunt and kill porpoises for no reason ... as they don't eat the porpoise, nor does the porpoise even compete for the same foods.

Male dolphins are even known to rape female dolphins. They are known to practise infantacide.

And where on earth does the idea that 'they seem able to communicate with most life in the sea' come from ?

Mac

benbradley · May 3, 2008

Just Jack said:
For some reason, many people lately have been questioning me on this. Exactly why am I an atheist? Why dont I believe in god? Let me explain.

I'm going to do this as a critique and as if it were posted in SYW (if I understand AW correctly, this particular forum is supposed to be about atheistic WRITING), even though I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. Perhaps as "devil's advocate" I can make your argument stronger.

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.

This is circular. If God doesn't exist, you don't have to surrender to Him.

And even if He did, it appears you'd be bullheaded, and if God showed up on the White House Lawn, was shown on national television (or even CNN) and started telling President Bush what to do (supressing speculations about what Bush might actually believe and saving them for another forum, perhaps TIO...), you would STILL be stubborn and refuse to surrender to Him. It doesn't logically follow that you are an atheist because of your resistance to surrendering.

And as others have said or implied, this concept is far from universal among all religions. The "surrendering to God" idea is certainly central to Christianity and Islam, but not neccesarily to other major religions.

Just Jack said:
2. The concept of god is crazy to me. The universe was not created in seven days, its just a fairy tale. 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. We are much more mature now, and religon just causes problems . (wars and whatnot)

Again, this is Christianity-specific, and even many Christians don't believe that the universe or the Earth was created in seven days.

Also, the concept of quantum physics is crazy to me, but that doesn't mean I have no belief in it. You're saying why you ought not to believe, NOT why you don't believe.

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

Well, life has rules. If you don't eat, you starve to death.

I can "see" your point here, you "don't like rules" but the point is very weak. You're not specific enough about what rules bother you, why you don't think you should follow them, but most especially, how does this inform you about the existence or nonexistence of God?

Much of your argument appears to be "I don't want to believe in God, because I don't want to do what Christianity tells me I would have to do if God existed." You seem to be saying why you WANT TO BE an atheist, not why you ARE an atheist.

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

Now this is an interesting point, and you use the word absolute here - it brings to mind my research on cults (which aren't always religious - there are what I call "business cults" which are usually multilevel marketing organizations/schemes, but there's also Scientology which claims to be a religion, but many say it's not). Cults often have "absolute" demands on its menbers, such as some form of "purity."

But back closer to the subject of your post, I can see where a (Christian) believer could just as easily argue that it's quite dangerous to NOT have faith in such a Being, as a nonbeliever would be eternally tormented in Hell.

Just Jack said:
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.

You've sort-of got a point here, but that argument still falls short of explaining why many people believe in God. I've read of religion-related polls over the years, and in the USA perhaps 95 percent say they believe in God and/or Heaven, but a substantially lower percentage believe in Hell. So it's not exclusively the fear of Hell that motivates people to believe in God.

But even without Hell, fear can be a motivating part of religion (or at least Christianity). I've often heard the words, at a funeral about the deceased, or just in general about a living person, "he/she's a good, God-fearing person" (or even without the word good, implying that fearing God equates to being good). So it's not just Hell itself some people fear. I recall the origin of the names of both the Shaker and the Quaker sects to be a Bible verse that goes something like "tremble and quake in the presence of The Lord").

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

Because it felt too arrogant not to.

Arrogance and humility are interesing points in relation to belief. I've sometimes heard from believers that atheists are arrogant, yet I've heard believers claim to be HUMBLE while at the same time claiming a conscious contact, or a "personal relationship," with "The Creater."

Just Jack said:
Morality is something that is learned both through your parents and through experience. I know that if religion never existed, we would still be obligated to behave on the same morale basis as we do today. I believe that while morales are essential to religion, religion is not essential to morales.

I hate when people claim me to be immorale because I dont have a faith. As an atheist, I can say that we are not trusted by general society. Even though I do show some decency, lots of people cant see past my beliefs...

You make an excellent point here - I think people on all sides of the issue agree that atheists are widely distrusted by the majority (which for the most part means believers). I generally keep a low profile as an atheist in my personal life, partly for this very reason, but also, it's not really anyone else's business what or whether I believe.

And yet there are many religious people (self-proclaimeed, or even highly respected by many others) who do very immorral things. What is one to believe about them? Is it just that they "sin" and "give into temptation" because they are human (or because they inherit "original sin" from Adam and Eve)? Or might they be faking their belief? Could they be "one of us" yet "passing"?

But many people find religious belief to be a solid indicator of moral character (see my most recent post in the "job interview question" thread). If another claims to be Christian, this is deemed good, and the idea that one might be lying may not often come to mind (though some input from Christians here might be enligntening). But if one admits to being a non-believer, this is considered bad, and one is judged to have bad or NO morals based solely on the label, and is judged worse than a self-proclaimed believer who has repeatedly "fallen." It's interesting that people can be given more credit for their words than their actions.

Now you've got me envisioning an article for some popular magazine that might occasionally print an article by some marginalized or radical person. I can see the titles now:

A Transgendered Person Speaks
A Terrorist Speaks
A Drug Addict Speaks
An Atheist Speaks

Daimeera · May 4, 2008

misterkel said:
This is not arrogance, because there is no statement that humanity is the highest, merely that no God exists. Perhaps dolphins are more spiritually evolved than we are, and I put this forth in all seriousness. Dolphins don't kill each other, and nothing else kills them. They seem able to communicate with most life in the sea. Your argument is a bit weak, to me. You base your belief on the idea that not believing is somehow arrogant? If there is no God, it isn't arrogant to believe that. It's accurate.
Why wouldn't you want to base your beliefs on what seems real and leave it at that? Besides, just because there is no God, doesn't mean humans aren't pretty fucked up.

Ignoring the errors already pointed out in the assumption of dolphin behaviour . . .

I don't believe that a lack of belief is arrogant. I felt that MY lack of belief was arrogant. The way I felt at the time did not strike me as humble, or entirely true to myself.

For a long time, I was sure that atheists had it all figured out--that there was no possibility we were wrong. And THAT was why I personally felt arrogant; I for so long refused to listen to others and consider that maybe I didn't understand everything.

I agree that humans can be pretty fucked up but I fail to see what that has to do with a higher power, or lack thereof. Religion can be poisonous, no doubt. And I don't subscribe to those religions that are poisonous. In fact, I don't subscribe to any particular religion. I feel that any higher power is (at least at this point) unknowable. But I cannot dismiss the idea the way I once did.

Additionally, I take issue with the thought that a higher power must be infallible. Accordingly, I guess I should perhaps not refer to said higher power as a god, but I can't think of a better term. There are so many things that we as humans don't understand that our lack of understanding is to me, to a certain degree, evidence of the possibility of a higher being.

I don't claim to have all the answers, and I guess maybe that's my point.

I don't think that atheism is arrogant, and I realise that's probably what it sounded like I was saying. I think that my atheism was arrogant. And maybe I'm not explaining the distinction well; if so, I apologise.

Ruv Draba · May 4, 2008

Daimeera said:
I don't think that atheism is arrogant, and I realise that's probably what it sounded like I was saying. I think that my atheism was arrogant.

Atheism is a bit like vegetarianism. You don't eat meat, but your reasons are your own - they might be moral, spiritual, social, medical, psychological, conceptual or you might just not like the dang taste. And just as vegetarianism isn't necessarily foregoing meat, atheism isn't necessarily foregoing religion. (If you don't see meat as food in the first place, you can't really miss it from your diet.)

Atheism is a conceptual ideology; it may or may not come with spiritual, moral and social values. For some people it does, and you may find those values to be agreeable or not; arrogant or not. But other atheists may have other values.

Speaking for myself, I quite dislike the values in most atheists I know, even though I agree with their beliefs! Daimeera may not want to say it, but I will: most atheists I've met are arrogant, cynical and self-absorbed. I can understand if you wouldn't want to hang with them. Other than in forums like this one, I don't even mention my beliefs because of the social stigma that often attaches to them.

Again, speaking personally, I much prefer to hang with theists - they're generally kinder, more generous, more humble and yummier folk. On the downside, they can get twitchy when you challenge their beliefs, even if you generally like their values. So my personal practice is not to challenge theistic beliefs unless they're being used to justify offensive behaviour or bad social policy.

Toothpaste · May 4, 2008

Do you really think it is because they are atheists that they are so bad, or because of the people they happen to be? I know a heck of a lot of religious people who are exactly the same as you described. To me it comes down more to a willingness to allow others to believe what they want to. I have no interest in fundamentalists in any religion (or non religion for that matter). I really resent people who come to my door to convert me, at the same time I also resent people who think those with religion are idiots.

I think it has less to do with all atheists being a certain way, than the people who actively promote themselves as atheists in your social circle having a much more fundamentalist behaviour.

Ruv Draba · May 4, 2008

Toothpaste said:
Do you really think it is because they are atheists that they are so bad, or because of the people they happen to be?

Hey Toothy. I don't know that they're bad, just mildly unpleasant and of low value to me. By that I mean I believe they don't think much, inquire much, take many risks or grow much. On the other hand, they are very willing to criticise and condemn the efforts of others. So: unpleasant and low value.

Are they more unpleasant or worse value than closed-minded, ill-educated self-entitled people of other persuasions? Of course not. It's just that atheists find it very easy to not care, not try and not learn whereas theists often have strong incentive to try and develop themselves. So, I've met a lot of really worthwhile theists and (despite having common beliefs) very few worthwhile atheists. (Of course, I haven't spent much time in this forum yet, so maybe a group of atheist-writers will prove the exception.

)

I've written it elsewhere: religion contains a lot of deceit; especially when it starts to try and explain the physical world. Theologists are seldom good physicists, and history shows that when it comes to understanding the physical world, strong faith is no substitute for open-minded observation. So I don't listen to theologists telling me how the world is. I also don't much trust theology in setting social policy. It's demonstrated strong and abiding self-interest, hypocrisy and downright exploitation as often as not (though in fairness, it seems only as bad as the rest of society is at the time).

On the other hand, theologists are not bad at morality, psychology and understanding the human condition. Most of the thought ever devised on these topics is religious thought, and many of the greatest writings on human development remain religious writings. Just cos the physics is bunkum, the cosmology is dodgy, the social commentary is self-interested, and it's full of superstition doesn't mean that there's no value. These guys have had millennia seeing people at their best and worst. Many of our most empathic and compassionate people have been religious people. I think there's some wisdom to be had from the writing, even if it's couched in symbolism and bizarre proscriptions.

Atheistic tendency to comb religious texts for logic holes (like they're hard to find!), or physical inconsistencies (ditto!), or outdated social values (double ditto) or ignore them entirely in favour of 48-page self-help books does create rather... shallow, cynical and narrow-minded personalities.

Or so I've found, anyway.

oscuridad · May 5, 2008

aside from all the other considerations there is this:

there are thousands of Religions claiming to be the absolute truth.
they cannot al be true
therefore they are all false.

yes, a rather ropey bit of logic, but it has a common sense to it.

I questioned a rather aggressive Christian on this - he said simply 'the other religions are false' - and of course, that is kind of my point.

Bartholomew · May 5, 2008

I am atheist for the simple fact that I am intellectually and morally opposed to the idea that gods somehow intertwine with human existence and meddle with our affairs.

Whether they exist or not is of shockingly little concern to me, and until one comes up and speaks to me, it will remain so.

there are thousands of Religions claiming to be the absolute truth.
they cannot all be true
therefore they are all false.

Absolute truth, when put into any form we recognize, is by definition distorted by man. Both by the presenter and the observer. In that case, can you honestly say all religions are false? Could you not, instead, say that all religions are the distorted reflection of some universal truth?

poetinahat · May 5, 2008

oscuridad said:
aside from all the other considerations there is this:

there are thousands of Religions claiming to be the absolute truth.

they cannot al be true

therefore they are all false.

yes, a rather ropey bit of logic, but it has a common sense to it.

But that logic is flawed.

The Christian could be right. So could the Jew, or the Buddhist, or the Muslim, or Sufist, or the Shinto, etc.

A plurality of conflicting theories does not imply that they are all false. [eta: as Bart said above, it's equally plausible to say that they all - or some of them, at least - contain elements of a Universal Truth. I guess it's a matter of whether you're looking to see where people right about something, or where they're wrong about anything.]

One could just as easily say that atheism is wrong, simply because an infinity of religious doctrines would guarantee that one of them must be right. And one would be just as wrong in saying it.

Bartholomew · May 5, 2008

misterkel said:
Perhaps dolphins are more spiritually evolved than we are, and I put this forth in all seriousness. Dolphins don't kill each other, and nothing else kills them. They seem able to communicate with most life in the sea.

I'm going to step out on a limb here and suggest that, perhaps, you meant to post this in one of the fiction forums?

Toothpaste · May 5, 2008

Ruv Draba said:
Hey Toothy. I don't know that they're bad, just mildly unpleasant and of low value to me. By that I mean I believe they don't think much, inquire much, take many risks or grow much. On the other hand, they are very willing to criticise and condemn the efforts of others. So: unpleasant and low value.

Are they more unpleasant or worse value than closed-minded, ill-educated self-entitled people of other persuasions? Of course not. It's just that atheists find it very easy to not care, not try and not learn whereas theists often have strong incentive to try and develop themselves. So, I've met a lot of really worthwhile theists and (despite having common beliefs) very few worthwhile atheists. (Of course, I haven't spent much time in this forum yet, so maybe a group of atheist-writers will prove the exception. )

I've written it elsewhere: religion contains a lot of deceit; especially when it starts to try and explain the physical world. Theologists are seldom good physicists, and history shows that when it comes to understanding the physical world, strong faith is no substitute for open-minded observation. So I don't listen to theologists telling me how the world is. I also don't much trust theology in setting social policy. It's demonstrated strong and abiding self-interest, hypocrisy and downright exploitation as often as not (though in fairness, it seems only as bad as the rest of society is at the time).

On the other hand, theologists are not bad at morality, psychology and understanding the human condition. Most of the thought ever devised on these topics is religious thought, and many of the greatest writings on human development remain religious writings. Just cos the physics is bunkum, the cosmology is dodgy, the social commentary is self-interested, and it's full of superstition doesn't mean that there's no value. These guys have had millennia seeing people at their best and worst. Many of our most empathic and compassionate people have been religious people. I think there's some wisdom to be had from the writing, even if it's couched in symbolism and bizarre proscriptions.

Atheistic tendency to comb religious texts for logic holes (like they're hard to find!), or physical inconsistencies (ditto!), or outdated social values (double ditto) or ignore them entirely in favour of 48-page self-help books does create rather... shallow, cynical and narrow-minded personalities.

Or so I've found, anyway.

Hon, I just kind of resent your atheists do this and theologists do that. Some of each group do, the ones you happen to know, do, not ALL. This is the problem I am finding with your arguments. Because of the people you know, you are classing everyone as such. I do not find the same trends with the friends I know at all, if fact considering some of the stuff I am constantly show on the television I could very well make some very negative conclusions towards theologists, does that mean I can make a sweeping generalisation as you do?

You want to talk morality? What about some Catholic who performs attrocious acts, and then, all they have to do is confess, and their sins are absolved? What about the idea that the only reason one does good is so that one goes to heaven, as opposed to doing good because that is the right thing to do (as atheists believe)? Or the ones who use some sort of prophet as an excuse that allows them to have sex with children? There are many examples of "theologists" too lacking morality. But I would never claim that ALL "theologists" lack morality just because a few use religion as an escape goat.

I am sorry you have had such a bad time with the atheists in your circle, and I am happy you know so many lovely theologists, but please stop with these sweeping generalisations, they are really starting to offend.

Marian Perera · May 5, 2008

Toothpaste said:
I am sorry you have had such a bad time with the atheists in your circle, and I am happy you know so many lovely theologists, but please stop with these sweeping generalisations, they are really starting to offend.

I thought of saying the same thing, then thought, "What's the use? Maybe I'll end up being classed as yet another self-centered, cynical, unpleasant atheist for criticizing these generalizations. If someone decides that atheists (apparently all, not most) find it easy to not care, not try and not learn, then why should I attempt to change that opinion?"

Perhaps this confirms me as one of those atheists who "don't think much, inquire much, take many risks or grow much", but life's too short for me to try to persuade people that I don't automatically fit into certain categories or have certain failings simply because I am an atheist.

rugcat · May 5, 2008

Ruv Draba said:
Hey Toothy. I don't know that they're bad, just mildly unpleasant and of low value to me. By that I mean I believe they don't think much, inquire much, take many risks or grow much. On the other hand, they are very willing to criticise and condemn the efforts of others. So: unpleasant and low value. . .

Atheistic tendency to comb religious texts for logic holes (like they're hard to find!), or physical inconsistencies (ditto!), or outdated social values (double ditto) or ignore them entirely in favour of 48-page self-help books does create rather... shallow, cynical and narrow-minded personalities.

It's interesting how much of oneself can be revealed in a simple post.

Angelinity · May 5, 2008

out of every 10 self-declared 'atheists' i've met along the way, I have at some point witnessed at least half of them talking, cursing or praying to God, either when sudden tragedy struck or found themselves emotionally at wit's end or within a hair of death's door -- including myself.

this has caused me question the real reasons behind atheistic 'beliefs'. atheism denies the existence of a God -- why? is it a form of 'adolescent' rebellion? were they/was i merely rebelling against the idea that some sort of God had or could take control of my life, choices, destiny, mortality?

if we are so certain that no God exists, then why expend the effort of denying his existence and defending one's right to believe as one chooses?

how in-control are we really over what happens to us along a fifty to seventy-some-year lifespan? i remember a time when i felt utterly invincible as i am sure many in this forum may be feeling right now. something (or a accumulation of little somethings) happened to pull me back into the flow from which i'd leapt and... it's not that simple -- there is much to learn and closing oneself off inside a bubble means one will come to learn only that which swims within that bubble, nothing more.

i wish to preach to no one, only to 'warn' (and even that's too strong a word) that those of us who lock all doors behind and choose to look but in one direction, will eventually see only that: a very small arc of a 360.

ETA: i'm not taking sides, this applies to atheists as well as non-atheists.

GeorgeK · May 5, 2008

Just Jack said:
I hate when people claim me to be immorale because I dont have a faith. quote]

But you do have a faith, the faith that there is no God. It is a faith that appears to be ever so ardent as those who feel threatened by your faith. If they were secure in their own faith, it shouldn't bother them, what you believe.

oscuridad · May 5, 2008

poetinahat said:
But that logic is flawed.

The Christian could be right. So could the Jew, or the Buddhist, or the Muslim, or Sufist, or the Shinto, etc.

A plurality of conflicting theories does not imply that they are all false. [eta: as Bart said above, it's equally plausible to say that they all - or some of them, at least - contain elements of a Universal Truth. I guess it's a matter of whether you're looking to see where people right about something, or where they're wrong about anything.]

One could just as easily say that atheism is wrong, simply because an infinity of religious doctrines would guarantee that one of them must be right. And one would be just as wrong in saying it.

It is flawed, in a way. But let me put it another way. The issue is that ALL claim to be right and that CANNOT be the case. The induction is that if most of them (i.e. all but one) must be wrong then ALL of them could be wrong (i.e. we do not know which one might be right) - indeed the likelihood that any one Religious system could be wrong far outweighs the likelihood that it could be right - in other words the statistical probability of any one system being the 'real' one is so close to zero that they all are effectively false.

GeorgeK · May 5, 2008

Ruv Draba said:
It's just that atheists find it very easy to not care, not try and not learn .

If they truly didn't care, then the topic would never come up. Most of the atheists I've known have read far more religious texts than those claiming to be true believers. Understanding the mechanics of a system requires a few skeptics. I think that's part of the programming and necessary to the system. I fail to see how an omnipotent God (and I believe there is at least one) would be threatened by any person or any group or people. Remember, if there was a war in Heaven and one third of the angels rebelled, that means that even in Heaven, when face to face with God, God only got a 67% approval rating. I'm sure that in this current system where God is hidden from our view, assuming God is Fair, Loving and Just. Then there is a place for all of us. We just have to do the best we can. Our brains are just too tiny to get it all right so to assume that anyone can get it all right (or all wrong) is illogical.

GeorgeK · May 5, 2008

Bartholomew said:
I am atheist for the simple fact that I am intellectually and morally opposed to the idea that gods somehow intertwine with human existence and meddle with our affairs.

Belief in free will does not obviate religious theology.

Mr Flibble · May 5, 2008

I'm going to do a crit, as above.

Just Jack said:
For some reason, many people lately have been questioning me on this. Exactly why am I an atheist? Why dont I believe in god? Let me explain.

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. I am religious. My religion does not require me to suurrender to anybody ( I don't even kneel to my 'gods'.) They are just entities that have more experience than me. That's it.

2. The concept of god is crazy to me. The universe was not created in seven days, its just a fairy tale. 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. We are much more mature now, and religon just causes problems . (wars and whatnot)

The seven days thing -- most people realise that these stories of how the world came to be are in fact an ancient world trying to make sense of things -- not actual 'this is what happened' This does not mean it was not created. Who made the big bang?

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

neither do I. ( I'm not a christian btw) I do think that what was written may have value and should not be dismissed out of hand. As MY religious text says : there is none so good he is without all flaw, and none so wretched he is without all virtue. Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean what was written in the bible has no value. My religion places emphasis on how you act, and doing what is right in your heart, no matter anything else.

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

The only rules my religion places on me are those I chose to inflict upon myself. To nick from shakespear it embodies 'to thy own self be true'. That's it. Do what your heart tells you is right is what it tells me. My heart is not a handcuff, and I can make almost any choice ( bar murder and breaking a promise) and not go against my gods. I have personal choice in everything but those two restrictions ( which asfaic are a given anyway)

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

I don't believe my gods have power over the universe,( caretakers of Earth maybe) so....that's not an issue for me.

It seems you are only railing against one religion that you don't like. I'm not a big fan of christianity ( how egotistical is it to assume the ultimate power of the universe gives a crap about what I do?) or its methods. That does not mean religion is bad, or that you cannot have faith.

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.

I don't do what my god says. I take into account what he has said, thats it. The rest is up to me and that's how my god wants it.

That's it. I understand this is a touchy subject, and I tried to be respectful. I am not saying religon is bad, just that its not good for me. Nor am I saying that religous PEOPLE are bad. I know that most people who believe in god and religon are good people. I am just discussing my viewpoint, that is all.

Conclusion: There are as many different 'religions' as there are people, because each person has a different interpretation of any religious texts. Just be yourself. Everything else will follow.

If you want to be an atheist, fine, if you really believe that. If it's just 'I don't believe anything else' think some more.

loquax · May 5, 2008

GeorgeK said:
But you do have a faith, the faith that there is no God. It is a faith that appears to be ever so ardent as those who feel threatened by your faith. If they were secure in their own faith, it shouldn't bother them, what you believe.

I object strongly to the notion that atheism requires faith equal to that of theism. There are an infinite amount of things to not believe in. It could be easily said that we all have "faith" in the non-existence of talking chickens, let alone invisible chickens, chickens the size of mountains, chickens who write novels. And that's just chickens. To have an infinite amount of "faiths" jumbling around in a single human brain is ludicrous, and I would have thought even more plain to see as such by those who actually have faith.

Rejecting ideas is not faith, it's simply a deduction based on previous knowledge, sometimes never pondered upon until the question has been asked. The belief in the non-existence of a god is just one of these deductions. It's a big one, but it fits in the category.

The only difficult leap we as atheists have to overcome is that the theists are in the majority. Therefore we must break the "norm". To those with faith, it might seem logical to imprint their own beliefs upon us, saying "if I have faith, then so do you". But this is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.

Mr Flibble · May 5, 2008

The only difficult leap we as atheists have to overcome is that the theists are in the majority. Therefore we must break the "norm". To those with faith, it might seem logical to imprint their own beliefs upon us, saying "if I have faith, then so do you". But this is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.

See now you're saying everyone with faith will try and convert you. NEWSFLASH: they try and convert me too, and I already have a religion. I bet no one says you're a satanist, when you don't even believe he exists..... And there are more atheists than there are people of my religion.

So if you really believe there is no god ( as opposed to thinking 'well it seems silly that there is one' or whatever), stick up for yourself! Have faith in yourself. Thor's foreskin! have faith in the toaster if that's all you can conjure up. Have faith in something, and your mind is the best thing to start with. Everyone believes something, even if it's only 'the toast always lands butter side down.' Whatever, if you spend your life believing nothing, what have you got? not a lot.

loquax · May 5, 2008

Having faith in yourself is a different definition of the word faith. I have plenty of reason to believe in myself, and in toasters. You could say I have faith that my toaster's element will bust within the next year. But that's because it's happened before. It's not the same kind of faith.

I also fundamentally disagree with the notion having Faith in something equates to having meaning in your life. I gain much more satisfaction from my actions than my beliefs. I'm still young, but on my deathbed, I know I that I'll be pleased in having made a difference, and I'll embrace the nothingness quite happily.

Angelinity · May 5, 2008

why do posts in threads like this one tend to get personal?

on what basis can a poster assume and declare 'out-loud' that another poster does not have faith in him/herself?

Mr Flibble · May 5, 2008

loquax said:
Having faith in yourself is a different definition of the word faith.

Faith is faith, whatever it's in. Faith in yourself, faith in a higher power, faith in coca cola. Tis all faith.

definition: faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth.

I have plenty of reason to believe in myself, and in toasters. You could say I have faith that my toaster's element will bust within the next year. But that's because it's happened before. It's not the same kind of faith.

me too. My toasters never last long , damn them! My only difference to you is I believe other stuff too.

I also fundamentally disagree with the notion having Faith in something equates to having meaning in your life.

I bet you believe in something though. No you don't have to have faith to have meaning, I agree with you there. But most people need a belief in something. Don't have to, but do anyway. Even if it's only faith in Sod's Law, like my Dad.

I gain much more satisfaction from my actions than my beliefs.

Me too

I'm still young, but on my deathbed, I know I that I'll be pleased in having made a difference, and I'll embrace the nothingness quite happily.

Good for you! See, you do believe in something. If I'm taking this the right way ( quite possible I'm not, cos I'm tipsy) but you believe that this life is all there is. So you have faith in that ? I've no problem with you believing what you like, btw, as long as you don't tell me I have to believe it too -- by the same token, I don't expect you to believe the same as me.

I do like a nice discussion though

eta: must lay off beer.

Why am I an atheist?

Board Visitor

It's a doggy dog world

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

Comic guy

Numbers are beautiful

Comic guy

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

starting over

Lost in the Fog

absent

ever seeking

ever seeking

ever seeking

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

I verb nouns adverbly

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

I verb nouns adverbly

absent

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble