RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 8:50 am
(December 5, 2012 at 7:12 am)pocaracas Wrote:(December 5, 2012 at 1:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Simple question.
This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.
What is the alternative to atheism?
Must I assume that religions already exist and then proceed to reject them (based in science and reason) in order to become an atheist?
Can't I be an atheist just by not being taught about religion at an early age?
Considering that I'm an atheist from birth, are you asking that I would very likely change my mind if this position wouldn't be supported by science and reason? Are you claiming that the alternative (religiousness) would be supported by something?
The alternative seems to be theism.
Strictly defined as "believing vs not believing in the existence of a God", if not believing becomes irrational and unscientific, the alternative is believing.
I'm not sure what one must do to become an atheist. I assume it's personal reflection and a decision not to be interested in theistic claims as being true.
