Is it a good idea to be an atheist?

[robvalue]

"Hi my name is Rob. I'm an atheist, but I'm here to learn more about you Christians, so I signed up to your forum.

Christians are dumb and their beliefs are irrational. Atheism is rational.

Discuss.

kthxbye"

[robvalue]

Here's some proof for God:

"Hmm. I want to make some buddies cos I'm bored. Who am I talking to? Myself, right. Jesus isn't invented yet. So... I think it's very important that they have to keep finding resources to put in their mouths, or else they die a hideous, painful death. Yes that's good. And I think my only option is to have them not be able to use all the resources up, and put another hole the other end, so they can shit the rest of it out. And I want it to stink really badly. Yeah, good. Can't improve on that model."

[Cyberman]

Because I cannot prove you wrong. I cannot prove there is a God. But I acknowledge it. On the other hand, you are saying that I need to prove to you there is a God. Which comes back to my original point. If I were able to demonstrate to you there is a God, I would be sitting on a pile of money, because not even the Pope can do that.

Then it's game over and thanks for playing. You have no case to make; we have no case to answer.

[abaris]

Most likely, we will hear something like "I only believe what I see" or "Why would a God let little innocent children die in a natural disaster?"

That's overly simplistic.

For me it was a gradual process. Starting at a pretty young age with having doubts. Then, for a very long time, I simply didn't care enough to even reflect on belief or disbelief.

What made it once and for all was my level of education. Simple as that. I never was a creationist to begin with. I simply didn't reflect how the image of the christian god and evolution go together. They don't.

Thinking about dying children didn't enter the equation. Only believing what I'm seeing, didn't enter either. I'm still open to experiences, but they have to be - you know - experiences and not just legends.

[Esquilax]

Then we ask the atheist, "you don't believe because of...[his answer]?"

I'll ignore the less solid parts of your posts- they've already been covered- and just tell you my story: I became an atheist by watching theists try to defend their belief in god. I had no particular interest in the subject one way or the other, right up until the point I started looking at the theistic arguments for god, and realized that all I ever saw were either outright lies or logical fallacies. The outrageous way christian apologists approached the topic of their god drove me to examine the opposing side for more information, and I found that while one side never said anything true, the other side strove to do nothing but speak the truth.

That's all I really need, to disbelieve. The believers have made no solid case, therefore it is rational to dismiss what they're trying to prove. I don't need to have evidence against every positive claim to stop believing in it; you don't have to believe in leprechauns up until you can prove they don't exist.

Then we tell him, "you realize you can help humanity a great deal by sharing your answer with the rest of the world?". "The world will be so much better knowing somebody has found a definite proof God does not exist because [his answer]". "You will be rewarded with a Nobel Prize and all wars will stop thanks to your thoughtfulness."

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. You don't have to accept every claim until it's proven false.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So we ask the atheist again: "Why don't you believe?". Let us record the answer.

I have no faith, at all.

Then we ask the atheist, "you don't believe because of...[his answer]?"

I don't know why I have no faith. It's the way I'm built. I don't believe shit that doesn't have demonstrable evidence.

Then we tell him, "you realize you can help humanity a great deal by sharing your answer with the rest of the world?". "The world will be so much better knowing somebody has found a definite proof God does not exist because [his answer]".

Except that many atheists don't make that claim. Of course, that's a very inconvenient fact for your "argument", such as it is.

"You will be rewarded with a Nobel Prize and all wars will stop thanks to your thoughtfulness."

Now you're just being a cunt. Stop it.

You see, the difference between a believer and an atheist is a believer believes and an atheist thinks he is right.

No. A religious believer believes in a god or gods, while an atheist does not. It really is that simple.

If you are an atheist and you so damn think you are right to be one, then let the world hear how you came to that conclusion, because for sure, this will change the world.

Thank you

Why should I want to change your mind? You're not that important that I should take time out of my day to earn your approval of my outlook. Besides, I don't think you're insightful enough to really understand it, and trying to explain it to you would be like teaching a pig to talk: it would waste my time, and annoy the pig.

---

All the more evidence the atheist at point should not, let us say, disbelieve.

Reasoning is not evidence. Anyone with half-a-brain knows this.

[Mister Agenda]

Hello,

I just want to ask a little, simple question here, to all atheists?

If you ask a believer why he believes in God, his answer most likely will be "Because I believe" or something to that extent.

Not very convincing, huh? The thing is, next time a believer convinces an atheist into believing, please let me know. I would be curious.

Let us turn the question around. Let us ask an atheist why he doesn't believe.

Most likely, we will hear something like "I only believe what I see" or "Why would a God let little innocent children die in a natural disaster?"

So we ask the atheist again: "Why don't you believe?". Let us record the answer.

Then we ask the atheist, "you don't believe because of...[his answer]?"

Then we tell him, "you realize you can help humanity a great deal by sharing your answer with the rest of the world?". "The world will be so much better knowing somebody has found a definite proof God does not exist because [his answer]". "You will be rewarded with a Nobel Prize and all wars will stop thanks to your thoughtfulness."

You see, the difference between a believer and an atheist is a believer believes and an atheist thinks he is right.

If you are an atheist and you so damn think you are right to be one, then let the world hear how you came to that conclusion, because for sure, this will change the world.

Thank you

I think you overestimate the world's susceptibility to reason.

A person should not believe something unless the reasons for doing so are good enough to overcome the null hypothesis. The proposition that God exists has never been supported to the extent that it would be more rationally supported to believe in God than not. Not to mention how many mutually exclusive concepts of God abound. Therefore, you should not believe God is real, and you especially should not believe a particular God is real.

---

None of you has answered my question.

I am still waiting.

Sorry but the burden of proof, as you call it, is on you. Otherwise, it means you would first - if no proof - assume there is no God. Which is contradictory.

The burden of proof to prove what? That we don't believe God is real? Met, I would think.

Burden of proof to prove God is not real? How did we wind up with that burden when we never asserted it to be the case? If you don't believe in leprechauns, is the burden of proof on you to prove they're not real? Are you sure you're not just trying to shift the burden of proof to us because that would be convenient to your argument?

I don't think you understand what the word 'contradictory' means. It's in no way contradictory not to believe in something until a convincing argument for it's existence has been made in the first place.

---

And you are absolutely right, an atheist may believe - and not think - he is right. Sorry about this. All the more evidence the atheist at point should not, let us say, disbelieve.

Everyone should disbelieve everything that there is not a good reason to believe in the first place.

---

Because I cannot prove you wrong. I cannot prove there is a God.

And we can't prove there isn't. Why should that be a problem for us rather than you?

But I acknowledge it.

That's refreshing for a theist. Par for the course for an atheist.

On the other hand, you are saying that I need to prove to you there is a God.

Only if you want me to believe you.

Which comes back to my original point. If I were able to demonstrate to you there is a God, I would be sitting on a pile of money, because not even the Pope can do that.

No kidding. The Pope is in the same position as you. So is the Ayatollah, the Dalai Lama, and on, and on, and on. You can't all be right, but you CAN all be wrong.

[Tonus]

You see, the difference between a believer and an atheist is a believer believes and an atheist thinks he is right.

The believer can resolve this by producing a god.

[Pizza]

Woh, man! I thought thinking and believing were both the same thing. Mind blown!

[Simon Moon]

Most likely, we will hear something like "I only believe what I see" or "Why would a God let little innocent children die in a natural disaster?"

It's not only what I can see (I can't see atoms, yet I believe they exist because their existence is supported by tons of evidence) but what can be supported by evidence and reasoned argument.

So we ask the atheist again: "Why don't you believe?". Let us record the answer.

Then we ask the atheist, "you don't believe because of...[his answer]?"

I don't believe because none of the arguments I have ever heard from theists for any religion, or belief in any gods, have been convincing.

Then we tell him, "you realize you can help humanity a great deal by sharing your answer with the rest of the world?". "The world will be so much better knowing somebody has found a definite proof God does not exist because [his answer]". "You will be rewarded with a Nobel Prize and all wars will stop thanks to your thoughtfulness."

You seem to misunderstand the atheist position and you are shifting the burden of proof.

Yes, I think that I am right.

My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one. If I was ever presented with convincing evidence and valid/sound logic to support the existence of a god, i would be compelled to believe.

You see, the difference between a believer and an atheist is a believer believes and an atheist thinks he is right.

I don't claim to know that I am right, I just haven't been convinced by theists that they are.

If you are an atheist and you so damn think you are right to be one, then let the world hear how you came to that conclusion, because for sure, this will change the world.

I have not been convinced that a god or gods exists. Therefore, I am right to disbelieve that they do.

I make no claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. Only that the case for the existence of a god has not met it's burden of proof, therefore, I am not justified to believe one does.

---

Because I cannot prove you wrong. I cannot prove there is a God. But I acknowledge it. On the other hand, you are saying that I need to prove to you there is a God. Which comes back to my original point. If I were able to demonstrate to you there is a God, I would be sitting on a pile of money, because not even the Pope can do that.

If you are making the claim that a god exists, and you are trying to convince others, then you have the burden of proof.

So, we understand that you believe a god exists. Since belief is being convinced that a proposition or premise is true, what has convinced you that a god exists?

In other words, why do you believe?

And as a follow up, why should we believe?