Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Ben Davis]

For the record, I think most here wouldn't care if atheism was irrational, they would still be atheists.

Firstly, the irony of irrationally claiming irrationality of a site-population renowned for it's rationality is not lost on me.

Secondly, if the existence of a god were demonstrated, I would accept it therefore cease to be an agnostic atheist. However my reaction to this fact would depend on the personality of the god; if it were the biblical, Abrahamic God, I'd become an active anti-theist.

[Creed of Heresy]

As if science supports atheism? Science doesn't support atheism, it simply dispels mythical thinking and superstition by subjecting the universe around us to empirical tests of evidence, observation, controls, variables, and all the other elements of the scientific method. Bible says earth was created in 7 days, science rejects that and gives us a much more accurate estimate. Bible says that humanity started with two human beings, one of which was created from a rib from the other, science shows that we come from the process of evolution. Bible says that the earth is flat, science has shown otherwise. Bible says the earth has foundations, but science has shown us that the center of the earth [closest you can come to when describing the "foundation" of a globe-shaped physical entity is the center...though this is a fundamental inaccuracy of the term "foundation, but that's what the bible says, so that's what I'm arguing against] is actually a molten core...not what I would call a foundation at all, nor would any. Bible says the dude walked on water, turned water into wine, and was resurrected after he died and floated into sky, where heaven apparently lies. Science tells us that fluid water cannot be walked upon unless it is frozen into a solid, transmutation of H20 into a compound containing ethanol-alcohol literally cannot happen, and the human body is beyond resuscitation after 6 minutes due to the brain shutting down and its neurological transmitters begin deteriorating.

Bible tells us a lot and science disproves virtually all of it. Even the science of archaeology. ESPECIALLY the science of biology.

But say, hypothetically, that science showed that all of this WAS true. That the earth IS 5000 or whatever years old, they we DID come from two suddenly-there humans, that Jesus DID walk on water and turned it into wine and died and came back to life. Then no, I wouldn't be an atheist because by all logical means I would be given proof that the biblical claims are fact, and since atheism is essentially "there is no evidence to back up your claim therefore I have no reason to see it as fact," I could not be an atheist, it would make no sense whatsoever.

I'll be honest, here, if all this stuff came up showing some religion or another was true and accurate, I may believe it...but I wouldn't necessarily believe IN it. If they wanted me to worship god, well, first I'd have to posit the questions of "why" and "how" and then "why" to the "how." Why worship this god? Is he insecure? Why is he so insecure that he needs worship? Why is he not above petty human emotions? What benefits do I hold to reap? What kind of worship? What happens as a result of said worship? It would make things very complicated, I imagine. And then comes the question, is this god even WORTHY of my worship? Simply starting my race out isn't much of a reason to worship him, given all the myriad plagues, torments, and traumas the experience of life entails. Does service to this godly thing get me an eternity in paradise? And what IS paradise, exactly? Cuz MY paradise might sound VERY different to the paradise the catholics have in mind. MY paradise would entail lots of buxom, green-eyed, curvy-figured redheads wearing nothing but fishnet lingerie constantly eager for me to wreck them and the bedroom, with all the video games in the world along with the most expensive LED TV and surround sound system you could imagine, where my home is an enormous palacial estate with an enormous party hall that is CONSTANTLY filled with all the people I like partying the fuck down in an endless whirl of debauchery, comaraderie, drinking, toking, eating, and fucking. Whereas a catholic paradise might be more, like...floating in the air all day polishing this godly deity's anus. And if the catholic "paradise" is the one I get sent to...I have no fucking desire for that shit. And what's the punishment? Hell? How do I actually know that hell even exists, considering its invention came LATER?

There's all these problems and complications that would have to be addressed before I could even begin to believe IN the religion. I wouldn't be an atheist, but I wouldn't be religious, either. I'd THEN become an apatheist, until given a reason not to be. And trying to SCARE me into submission won't do much more than return me to antitheism.

Good thing we don't have to worry about any of this since science exists, eh? Isn't that right, my fellow "atheist?" Vinny? Right? XD

[pocaracas]

But it depends on the definitions of the words you are using. The concept under consideration depends on it.

If science and reason support a religious worldview, this religion/myth/etc. wouldn't be a what we know them to be... they would be something else.... hence I agree, some redefinitions would be in order.

Good thing that in our real world religion and science clash so often!
Let words keep their dictionary definitions... and my sanity to stay intact.

[Ben Davis]

It boils down to comparing probabilities. What's the probability the universe, the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes, versus with the existence of God.

Fuck probability! It's demonstrable that 'the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes' whereas there is no factual evidence anywhere, at all, to demonstrate the existence of any god let alone the abrahamic God.

What this argument does is show that considering only unguided processes (evolution, natural selection, etc), universes that support life are just mindbogglingly unlikely to come out in such a way as to actually be sustainable for any long period of time, LET ALONE long enough to sustain life of any kind, LET ALONE life as complex as human life.

Irrelevant and here's an analogy to explain why. Imagine flipping a coin 10billion times and charting the sequence of results each time you flip. When you've finished, calculate the probability of the coin-flips happening exactly the way they did. The odd's will be ridiculously astronomical. But that doesn't matter because they did occur in the manner that you charted; one at a time, flip by flip.

---

I'm not sure what one must do to become an atheist.

Not believe in god/s. It's that simple.

I assume it's personal reflection and a decision not to be interested in theistic claims as being true.

There's no 'route map' to atheism. There are many reasons that people have for not believing. If you're claiming that 'disinterest' in the truth claims of theism is the main one, you clearly don't understand why this site exists in the first place.

[The Grand Nudger]

@The question posed in the OP. Nope. This is akin to asking whether or not a person would be an atheist if atheism meant "doesn't believe in oxygen". Now let's take a look at your two little categories.

a) Motivations that contain a lot of emotion.

b) Motivations that contain reason. Rationale. Thinking. Arguments.


I see almost no discussion of (b) on this forum.

But emotions? Anger? Hate? Tons of it. I do my fair share of trollerskating and mock the anger and hate with even more anger and hate.

But let's face facts. Most atheists here are driven by anger and hatred, not rationality and critical thinking.

JUS SAIYAN.

No, Vinny, I'm not angry at god, no matter what your shaman may have told you.

That said, you're bound to see alot of discussions about emotion, and relatively few about, reason, rationale, thinking....we have plenty of arguments though... The reason for this is blisteringly simple. Since there isn't any evidence that there are gods floating around, and there isn't any proof that there are gods floating around......that particular discussion would be a short one. On the other hand, if somebody greatly dislikes this or that part of a narrative - there's plenty to talk about.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Yes, but if you could not prove she is pregnant, does that automatically mean she isn't pregnant?

No, of course not.

That would leave us agnostic about both claims.

For the record, I think most here wouldn't care if atheism was irrational, they would still be atheists.

Firstly, the irony of irrationally claiming irrationality of a site-population renowned for it's rationality is not lost on me.

Secondly, if the existence of a god were demonstrated, I would accept it therefore cease to be an agnostic atheist. However my reaction to this fact would depend on the personality of the god; if it were the biblical, Abrahamic God, I'd become an active anti-theist.

No citations and making an extraordinary claim.

Yeah, thank you. You make me wanna speak in my gabagool Italian accent again.

But it depends on the definitions of the words you are using. The concept under consideration depends on it.

If science and reason support a religious worldview, this religion/myth/etc. wouldn't be a what we know them to be... they would be something else.... hence I agree, some redefinitions would be in order.

Good thing that in our real world religion and science clash so often!
Let words keep their dictionary definitions... and my sanity to stay intact.

Hey, I prefer the dictionary definitions.

But I've been hearing a lot of equivocation on what atheism means, from other atheists.

"It's a lack of belief in God" "It's the claim that God does not exist"

All this means you get 30 minutes into an argument to find out the two of you agree with each other, but the definitions are different!

That gets my goat. That really gets my goat. Really really, and I don't mind admitting this to you.

Ugh. People using words with crazy definitions.

It boils down to comparing probabilities. What's the probability the universe, the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes, versus with the existence of God.

Fuck probability! It's demonstrable that 'the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes' whereas there is no factual evidence anywhere, at all, to demonstrate the existence of any god let alone the abrahamic God.

What this argument does is show that considering only unguided processes (evolution, natural selection, etc), universes that support life are just mindbogglingly unlikely to come out in such a way as to actually be sustainable for any long period of time, LET ALONE long enough to sustain life of any kind, LET ALONE life as complex as human life.

Irrelevant and here's an analogy to explain why. Imagine flipping a coin 10billion times and charting the sequence of results each time you flip. When you've finished, calculate the probability of the coin-flips happening exactly the way they did. The odd's will be ridiculously astronomical. But that doesn't matter because they did occur in the manner that you charted; one at a time, flip by flip.

---

I'm not sure what one must do to become an atheist.

Not believe in god/s. It's that simple.

I assume it's personal reflection and a decision not to be interested in theistic claims as being true.

There's no 'route map' to atheism. There are many reasons that people have for not believing. If you're claiming that 'disinterest' in the truth claims of theism is the main one, you clearly don't understand why this site exists in the first place.

Fuck probability?

Your credibility just shot down faster than that thing that shoots down real fast.

How about let's not fuck probability because we live in the real world where certainty ain't easy to come by eh?

---

@The question posed in the OP. Nope. This is akin to asking whether or not a person would be an atheist if atheism meant "doesn't believe in oxygen". Now let's take a look at your two little categories.

a) Motivations that contain a lot of emotion.

b) Motivations that contain reason. Rationale. Thinking. Arguments.


I see almost no discussion of (b) on this forum.

But emotions? Anger? Hate? Tons of it. I do my fair share of trollerskating and mock the anger and hate with even more anger and hate.

But let's face facts. Most atheists here are driven by anger and hatred, not rationality and critical thinking.

JUS SAIYAN.

No, Vinny, I'm not angry at god, no matter what your shaman may have told you.

That said, you're bound to see alot of discussions about emotion, and relatively few about, reason, rationale, thinking....we have plenty of arguments though... The reason for this is blisteringly simple. Since there isn't any evidence that there are gods floating around, and there isn't any proof that there are gods floating around......that particular discussion would be a short one. On the other hand, if somebody greatly dislikes this or that part of a narrative - there's plenty to talk about.

Nah, I seen the stupid irrationality that pops out of peoples' mouths when the religious contingent come up here every few weeks to try and debate.

It's all emotion bro. Smart conversation cannot be had because people are huffing this stuff.

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems to me we had a decently beefy thread on just why these appeals to probability are garbage - very recently. You know, reason, logic, arguments etc. Guess he missed that one.

Start the smart conversation you want to have man, ffs...stop whining and start a god-damned thread..lol. Most of the "debate" is handled in the first few responses. Unfortunately for the claim and the claimant..conversations tend to linger after their fuel is spent.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Seems to me we had a decently beefy thread on just why these appeals to probability are garbage - very recently. You know, reason, logic, arguments etc. Guess he missed that one.

Start the smart conversation you want to have man, ffs...stop whining and start a god-damned thread..lol. Most of the "debate" is handled in the first few responses. Unfortunately for the claim and the claimant..conversations tend to linger after their fuel is spent.

You're in one and you don't even know it, brah!

Atheists saying "fuck the bayes theorem".

It's like the dark ages in here, and we gotta figure out why atheists still think like this.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you care to explain how levaraging bayes theorem would affect atheism then? Bayes theorem, by the by, not so useful if it's couched in the hypothetical scenario of a universe with god or without god.

It's bound to be a bit like the dark ages in here, people keep popping up insisting that their dark age belief systems be taken seriously........

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Would you care to explain how levaraging bayes theorem would affect atheism then? Bayes theorem, by the by, not so useful if it's couched in the hypothetical scenario of a universe with god or without god.

It's bound to be a bit like the dark ages in here, people keep popping up insisting that their dark age belief systems be taken seriously........

How is Bayes not relevant for the universe?