Why are atheist...atheist?

[The Grand Nudger]

This is going to get long winded.

@Frodo, re tinkerer gods and ID being falsifiable claims. When a claim is made that a certain agent is the cause for an event, it is falsifiable. We have better explanations for speciation than "goddidit". Abiogenesis is a different area of study. It is active, we don't have all of the details, but we have no reason to assume that we will not have a better answer than "goddidit". If you would like to place god in this gap, be my guest. I don't have all the answers Frodo, and neither do you. That doesn't mean that there aren't any.

@Frodo, re celestial graffiti. You're absolutely right here. It doesn't have to have gods name on it, and maybe I shouldn't have used that turn of phrase. Lets say a book very much like the bible, admittedly written by men but claiming divine inspiration was found to have within its covers knowledge of the world which was so beyond the authors that it left us scratching our heads. That would be a very good case. God in that example may not be the only explanation, but it would certainly be one which demanded consideration. The bible does not fit this bill, as it does not contain knowledge that the authors wouldn't have had available to them. To take only one example of why the bible doesn't fit the bill, it's cosmology is flawed in the same way that all other cosmologies from that area and time are flawed. God would have had better data at his disposal, as an eyewitness to creation.

@Frodo, observations do count, even yours. There comes a point however where we have to take all of these observations and weigh them. We have to decide which conclusions, which model, best fits observed reality. Some observations fall under the umbrella of confirmation bias, not just religious observations, scientific observations as well. It is the duty of those who seek knowledge to sort these out and present us with a clear picture of observed reality. To tie this in with a statement you made, you claim that all of human history and indeed existence itself is proof of god, this is confirmation bias. No other explanation would be sufficient to you, you are attempting to make the observations fit the model. On the one hand, you maintain that god is self evident, and on the other, that no evidence could prove or disprove god. This is either an example of cognitive dissonance, or a position you have assumed merely for the sake of argument. Your observation doesn't even fit your own model.

@Al, re unlikely. If the entirety of your argument for the existence of god, however you define it, is the "unlikely" nature of our universe, this is an argument from ignorance/incredulity. That you cannot explain it, that you cannot believe it, has absolutely no effect on whether or not it happened. "I don't know ergo god" is a fairly weak position. I don't know how a telephone works, ergo telephone god.

@Al, re unicorns. What exactly about god is not fully understood? In what way do myths about god differ from myths about unicorns?

@Al, intelligent design. What is so intelligent about this design? The earth is a killing machine, even more so with regard to human beings, who occupy only a very small portion of the available area. The earth itself is surrounded by an area absolutely inhospitable to life..and this area stretches as far as we can observe. Everything that exists, is heading for non-existence in the short term (death) and annihilation in the long term (solar death, converging paths of solar systems/galaxies). I fail to see the intelligence in this design. Maybe you're arguing that the creator of the universe "did his best"?

@Al, re no evidence. I don't even know where to begin. You assert that there is no evidence that gods do not exist. Which god, and I'll point you to the evidence. If by god, you mean a god with no descriptions, no attributes, you are claiming nothing. If you claim nothing, I need not point to any evidence.

@Al re strong atheism is ignorant. Only if by "ignorant" you are describing a level of disagreement with your opinions.

@Al re my reference to gardens. I was merely illustrating to you that natural selection does indeed have an effect on one type of god, creator gods. That it doesn't have an effect on all gods is obvious. Not all gods are described as creator gods.

@Al re definitions of god. The definition of god is not vague. Your definition of god is vague. Others have very well defined gods, and these are the gods that we as atheists take issue with.

@Al re existence came from nothing, irregardless of god. No, existence does not have to come from nothing. It comes from "we don't know". The events of the "big bang" were so violent, so immense, that whatever may have existed before does not seem to have left any traces. Perhaps one day we may be able to peer beyond that veil, today is not that day. Nonetheless, existence does not have to come from "nothing", unless you subscribe to certain verses along the lines of "In the beginning, there was nothing".

@Al re burden of proof. People absolutely do have the burden of proof when they make claims such as this or that exists. This burden becomes even more important when certain obligations and rules are attached to this things existence, especially when they also come with punishments bundled as a package deal.

@Al re atheist who would deny god's existence. Your entire argument is a god of the gaps, removing any objectionable description of god. What exactly is there to deny?

Since I know you love Epicuras...
"That which can be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

I can't hammer this point enough. The current crop of apologists would like to remove all descriptions of god from the discussion. Without these descriptions, the concept of god is meaningless.
In what way is an unknowable god different from no god at all?

[Alastor]

How do you go about defining the probability for the laws of physics? What are the chances the laws of physics could be different? You can't answer these but are not afraid to speculate on them.

That is what philosophy is all about. It is about making deductions or inductions from a basic premise, assumed to be true, that, themselves, are also necessarily true. Therefore I do not need to know the details of creation, only that out of nothingness came specificness, you cannot deny this truth. To ask "what are the chances the laws of physics could be different" is the same as asking if nothingness has a bias or tendency toward something and how much. This is illogical, since, otherwise, it couldn't be nothingness. Therefore, in order for a non-infinite probability to exist, there would have to have never been nothingness in the first place. Once again, I "choose" to believe the universe didn't just start with constraints and limits with amazing detail. This, to me, makes no sense. Its not just that the universe stumbled on upon a few rules but became something so complex, so specific and , coincidentally, stable that it is difficult for the human mind to even conceive creating something like it. In order for God, or an intelligent creator, not to exist, then you have to choose to believe that these laws just sort of happened from; either from complete nothingness or nothingness with an incredibly specific bias. It certainly is possible, but I don't think so.

No, you didn't choose, you reached a conclusion based on your view of the probability. For it to be a choice, you would have had to weigh no evidence at all.

I don't get this statement, a choice is always a choice evidence or no evidence. Only conclusion I came to is that the universe either started off with a bias toward something or it did not. I still had choose to believe in God or not based on that.

Again, beliefs based on observations of evidence are not choice but conclusions. Do you choose to believe the sky is blue?

To answer this question, yes, I still have to choose to believe the sky blue. The sight of blueness does not, in itself, force me believe the sky blue. I have to assume my vision is correct among many other things. Need I set up the premise that God or an evil deity may be deceiving my senses?

If I see no evidence for something it is rational for me to assert that I have no belief in something until I do see evidence. Atheism is not the assertion god does not exist, but merely the lack of a belief that a god does exist. Since you appear to not know whether god exists or not, you are actually an agnostic atheist.

If this is true, then this is fine except that it would be more politically correct to say "no beliefs about something" than "in something". To say about something, implies you will not make assumptions about something you do not understand. In something, implies, or at least has the connotation that you deny it.

Example:

" I have no beliefs about America"- implies I know nothing about America

" I don't believe in America"- implies I disagree with it's beliefs or I don't believe it exist. And to not believe it exist requires some assumptions about its nature.

The evidence against them is their contradictory characteristics.

That is not evidence at all. If we are talking about a God from the Big 3 monotheistic religions, then there could be many reasons for the appearance of what we might call contradictory. These religions are exactly based logic or philosophical deduction.

Your definition of atheist is really the definition of 'strong atheist.' An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god.

Again, this the definition I read.

It is human nature to be upset when someone refers to your beliefs as ignorant. It makes you sound arrogant and condescending, not inquisitive.

If my premise was not correct, then why get upset. Especially if you'd agree someones belief are ignorant when they are based on the premise I suggested.

Your explanation was anything but thorough and your premise was wrong. Hopefully I have enlightened you as to what a person means when they say they are an atheist.

Which part was not thorough because all of it was "right of the money", so to speak, after re-reading it multiple times. If the premise was wrong it was only because the dictionary I read was wrong about the definition of atheist.

---

@Al, re unlikely. If the entirety of your argument for the existence of god, however you define it, is the "unlikely" nature of our universe, this is an argument from ignorance/incredulity. That you cannot explain it, that you cannot believe it, has absolutely no effect on whether or not it happened. "I don't know ergo god" is a fairly weak position. I don't know how a telephone works, ergo telephone god.

This is completely misunderstanding what I've said and running away with the wind with it at that. First off I can explain it and have. There is not ignorance but, like I said, in response to "Faith no More", a logical conclusion which leaves with me with two choices. The belief in God is the more realistic choice to me and I explain why. Refer to my response to have better understanding of my position.

@Al, re unicorns. What exactly about god is not fully understood? In what way do myths about god differ from myths about unicorns?

Are you serious?

@Al, intelligent design. What is so intelligent about this design? The earth is a killing machine, even more so with regard to human beings, who occupy only a very small portion of the available area. The earth itself is surrounded by an area absolutely inhospitable to life..and this area stretches as far as we can observe. Everything that exists, is heading for non-existence in the short term (death) and annihilation in the long term (solar death, converging paths of solar systems/galaxies). I fail to see the intelligence in this design. Maybe you're arguing that the creator of the universe "did his best"?

Ignorance is assuming you have the full picture from a small facet of reality.

@Al, re no evidence. I don't even know where to begin. You assert that there is no evidence that gods do not exist. Which god, and I'll point you to the evidence. If by god, you mean a god with no descriptions, no attributes, you are claiming nothing. If you claim nothing, I need not point to any evidence.

I mean the God who created the universe need I quote my own self

For me God is any being or conscious that at least has the property that it created the universe

@Al re strong atheism is ignorant. Only if by "ignorant" you are describing a level of disagreement with your opinions.

No, I mean ignorance as in saying you know God doesn't exist when you know you don't know whether God exist or not.

@Al re my reference to gardens. I was merely illustrating to you that natural selection does indeed have an effect on one type of god, creator gods. That it doesn't have an effect on all gods is obvious. Not all gods are described as creator gods.

No it may have some negating effects some creator god's but not on the idea of a creator God itself. Not unless you make far reaching assumptions about the nature of God, which I did not make.

@Al re definitions of god. The definition of god is not vague. Your definition of god is vague. Others have very well defined gods, and these are the gods that we as atheists take issue with.

The definition of has many meanings of course. But it is general consensus in monotheistic beliefs that God created the universe. This is my belief, and I was simply saying, originally, that is makes no sense to say know that an intelligent Creator being never existed.

@Al re existence came from nothing, irregardless of god. No, existence does not have to come from nothing. It comes from "we don't know". The events of the "big bang" were so violent, so immense, that whatever may have existed before does not seem to have left any traces. Perhaps one day we may be able to peer beyond that veil, today is not that day. Nonetheless, existence does not have to come from "nothing", unless you subscribe to certain verses along the lines of "In the beginning, there was nothing".

Again refer to my response to "Faith no More" or explain why existence does not have to come from nothing. Anything before the big bang must have also came from something. Correct?

@Al re burden of proof. People absolutely do have the burden of proof when they make claims such as this or that exists. This burden becomes even more important when certain obligations and rules are attached to this things existence, especially when they also come with punishments bundled as a package deal.

No, because many monotheistic religions imply proof is not easily found. For example I have always heard Christians say "blessed are those who believe without seeing"

Therefore reason, is far more plausible.

@Al re atheist who would deny god's existence. Your entire argument is a god of the gaps, removing any objectionable description of god. What exactly is there to deny?

This is my point EXACTLY, your question implies it is ignorant to deny a Creator when you know nothing about him.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

I can just as easily flip that around and say

"That which can be suggested with reason, should be dismissed, from suggestion, with reason"

Furthermore my original premise, based on the dictionary definition of atheist, is exactly what dear epicuras is describing

To assert that God doesn't exist without evidence, can be dismissed without by evidence, yes, but I was more or less just pointing out that is was ignorant to have that belief without sufficient reason.

[Alastor]

Hi Alastor - allow me to welcome you to the forum. Seems that you have ruffled a few of the bigger birds feathers, as well as causing offense (which I find deliciously ironic, given the amount of criticism religious folk get for being similarly offended). Relating to why Atheists choose NOT to believe in god, I think that each person would have varying reasons. Possibly that for a creator to exist then that entity would also be subject to design is the most prominent argument. I think it is obvious the the sexist, greedy, easily offended gods that monotheistic religions pimp out can be ruled out by ANYBODY of reasonable intelect. I would be interested to hear about what religious background you/your parents have. Anyways welcome !

Thanks man. Actually I was originally raised as a Christian. I began question these beliefs during adolescence for the very reasons you suggested (sexist, greed, ego etc.) and now admit that I simply do not know. I remember asking my dad why women can't be priest, when their mental capacity is the same as a mans, and I think he said because their period makes them unholy or something like that. My own personal belief about God is that God can only be known through personal self discovery. There is no general library you look for to find God. You can only know through your own journey, if is its possible.

Many of these guys think I'm calling them ignorant when I was actually saying "isn't it ignorance to say you know something when you know you do not". No one can disagree with this and if it does not actually apply to anyone here then there is no reason to get upset over it, especially you agree the claim ,that this ignorance, yourself.

[leo-rcc]

I asked this same question on yahoo answers and for some reason offended alot of people. I thought atheist weren't not as prone to respond like religious people when someone questions there beliefs.

Perhaps that is because you are just plainly asserting what we believe instead of finding out what it is we do believe. Atheism is not a belief system, it can however be a part of one. What that belief is is not the same for every atheist.

I for one do not believe that a deity exists. That does not mean that I believe one doesn't exist. There is a difference, and as soon as you figure that out you might stop with making these blanket statements about atheists.

[Ace Otana]

Theists just love telling us what we believe. They never seem to do the sensible and intelligent thing and actually ask us what we believe or lack belief in anything.

If they're not telling us what we believe, they're trying to redefine atheism. This one has already used special pleading to support his beliefs. Not looking good.

[Epimethean]

How many times does one have to serve tea from a martini shaker to prove that the teapot exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

You've carefully crafted a statement to avoid contradiction, by way of making god a factually meaningless proposition. Your model has no explanatory value, it makes no predictions, and cannot be falsified. It's an extremely weak model.

"if god can be said to, and if god can be supposed as" My friend, god cannot be said to, and cannot be supposed as, you must provide evidence for your assumptions if you wish to compare them to others assumptions. Further you must prove these assumptions before the conclusions you have reached upon said assumptions can be argued to be superior to others conclusions.

[Napoléon]

Another one?

I wonder how long he's going to last.

[Sciwoman]

Maybe I'm getting cynical, but I was thinking sock puppet....but then again there are so many of them using the same tired arguments that they do start to sound alike. However, I'll bite:

It boils down to evidence - there is none. Warm, fuzzy feelings or twelfth-hand stories of miracles don't cut it.

[Kayenneh]

---

This is why.

Also, the whole definition of a god is vague, but if it is a higher being that supposedly created everything (but was not created itself) and judges us etc. etc., I still wouldn't follow that shithead. Sure, I would acknowledge that such a thing existed, if it was actually proven to me, and not based on anyones hunches or personal beliefs, feelings and perceptions.

---

That quote from epicurus is ridiculously out of touch, not one statement makes any sense and I will explain why if you'd like.

Also the definition of God is vague, which is exactly why I say It doesn't make sense to assert he doesn't exist. If an atheist is open to his existence then my question does not apply because he is using the word atheist to admit he really doesn't know, which is what I've suggested made more sense in the first place.

Furthermore, existence came from nothingness whether God was there or not so the problem of God creating himself is not a mystery associated with his existence but reality and therefore should have no bearings as an argument for or against his existence. Also, you assume he judges us, perhaps from religious text, but again I've already shown that religious beliefs are also inherently ignorant.

Also to acknowledge his existence is one thing but to deny his existence is a another. You'd also need proof for that too, unless you were bias toward believing he didn't exist and that as I've shown is no different from religious people. Once again, let me just make it clear that anyone who is open to possibility of God's existence is really just saying he doesn't know. To flat out deny his existence is saying you know which is inherent ignorance.

Out of touch? It merely illustrates how every single thing said about the god (of the desert) is a contradiction. If that quote was the first thing that came into my mind when you asked why an atheist "chose" not to believe, then it will suffice as an answer. I might not answer the question in a satisfactory manner to you, but don't ask if you're not willing to hear different opinions. What's the purpose of you pondering upon such things, if you've rigged the question, not wanting to hear anything else than what you yourself has come up with?

As for the vague god, there's the Epicurus quote significant. "Why call him god?". Truly, if we can't define the being in question, why call it a god? What is a god anyways? For me it is the god of the desert, namely the one from the bible, torah and quaran, and such a being is not real. He is a work of fiction, the worst/best villain ever written. But that simple-minded, arrogant and vengeful god would've created anything? No, he is a god of destruction and nothing more. And if existence and god came of the same nothingness, then he is definitely no creator. Believing in something as ridiculous as a god is idiotic, whether you have religion or not to back you up.

This is the god I deny. There's so much that I don't know about this universe and yes, I consider myself rather ignorant. But I do not go and fill in those blanks with fantasy.