(May 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm)SteveII Wrote:(May 17, 2016 at 3:51 pm)sk123 Wrote: I am curious what some compelling reasons are for becoming an atheist. What are some reasons that have been the deciding factor?
It seems to me, judging by the large number of versions of "there's no evidence" one-liners, that many people who identify themselves as an atheist espouse some sort of positivist argument:
Quote:Positivism is a philosophical theory stating that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge.[1] Positivism holds that valid knowledge (certitude or truth) is found only in this derived knowledge.[2]
Verified data (positive facts) received from the senses are known as empirical evidence; thus positivism is based on empiricism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
However, there are a bunch of problems with this philosophy so most atheists' arguments aren't very sophisticated. BTW, the same thing happens for theists--many do not have sophisticated arguments for their belief--relying on experiences and trust in the contents of their holy book(s).
The question of the existence of God cannot be commented on by science--not at all. These are metaphysical questions and reasons and arguments for and against the proposition are necessarily metaphysical in nature.
If I should not base my belief in a god on demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logic, what should I base my belief on?
Without meeting the criteria I require to accept existential claims as being true, what should my justification be for doing so?
I disagree with your claim that the existence of a god can not be commented on by science. Whenever a god claim includes: the existence of the universe, the beginning of life, "miracles", etc, it is trespassing directly on the realm of science.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.