Why Atheism?

[frz]

I have a few questions I would like to ask that hound me concerning the philosophical belief known as atheism.

I don't claim and believe in atheism. It is just who I am, a person who does not see nor hear any god/s, spirits, ghosts and any other supernatural thing imaginable. I do not replaced those supernatural things with nature, nature is just there. I am part of it as I breath, eat and shit.

[Cato]

I am comfortable saying I don't know, and then endeavoring to discover an answer. Replacing ignorance with an unprovable deity hardly solves the problem and comes across as intellectually lazy, if not dishonest.

[Darkstar]

I have a few questions I would like to ask that hound me concerning the philosophical belief known as atheism.

Atheism is not necessarily a belief. It is more often simply not believing god exists than believing he definitely doesn't.

1. What makes you all different from any enitity believing world views, when in all technical (if you're intellectually honest) are merely replacing *insert enitity here* with nature.

Not necessarily anything. Perhaps the difference is insomuch as that we lack the religious aspect of our lives (though there are some atheistic religions such as Buddhism that would be an exception).

2. In truth and honesty how do you claim objectivity when inductive reasoning use as a means to justify a full naturalist point of view?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I will say that unless the supernatural makes itself known in a public way, there isn't any real reason to believe in it. Even if we couldn't directly observe the supernatural, we could observe the otherwise physically impossible effects it has on the natural.

3. My Final question is simple, when inductively we know things do not spring out of nothing (ex nihilio) how is taking the stance nature did still not considered faith in it most general definition?

We don't know this. Quantum fluctuations contradict the idea that something cannot come from nothing. Of course, quantum fluctuations are not fully understood by any means. It also depends on what definition of faith you are using. For the "believe with no evidence" version, not quite as there is evidence (albeit not fully understood yet), for the "believe with no proof", then sure, but it would be difficult to prove that the earth isn't about to blow up, there is simply no reason to think that it is.

Atheists don't necessarily claim the universe came from nothing, though. I honestly don't know what it came from or if it always existed, albeit in some other form. Atheists simply reject belief in god. Anything else is still up for grabs.

[downbeatplumb]

Why Atheism?

Because I don't believe in god.

[Violet]

1. What makes you all different from any enitity believing world views, when in all technical (if you're intellectually honest) are merely replacing *insert enitity here* with nature.

Because not believing in a god means one must suddenly believe in nature?

Alienz, dawg.

2. In truth and honesty how do you claim objectivity when inductive reasoning use as a means to justify a full naturalist point of view?

Nobody claims this, unless they're ignorant of the word and they mean 'intersubjectivity', which they claim on faith... just like you and I do.

We're not even talking about solipsists here, just atheists, who are rarely solipsists. Faithless bastards.

3. My Final question is simple, when inductively we know things do not spring out of nothing (ex nihilio) how is taking the stance nature did still not considered faith in it most general definition?

Nothing springs from nothing, and nothing is something, therefore something comes from nothing. When there's nothing, everything springs from nothing, therefore everything comes from nothing.

Simple answer to a simple question. I'm actually not sure what your question is, because it's formulated in such a way as to be very open-ended.

[bladevalant546]

Yea those questions are general, sadly those are taken from my own experiences with apperently a few athiests of a greater number. I appreciate the answers given here, it helping me get a nonbias view of atheism. I been doing alot of mental reconstruction. You do not deprogram 23 years of christian belief in a year. I appreciate yalls input thanks.

[Violet]

Yea those questions are general, sadly those are taken from my own experiences with apperently a few athiests of a greater number. I appreciate the answers given here, it helping me get a nonbias view of atheism. I been doing alot of mental reconstruction. You do not deprogram 23 years of christian belief in a year. I appreciate yalls input thanks.

Ehh, people only come in two stripes.

Hookers, and flamingoes.

I bet you can't guess which variety is gay.

[frz]

Ehh, people only come in two stripes.

Hookers, and flamingoes.

I bet you can't guess which variety is gay.

Well, we all love hookers.... Hey wait, that was a tricked question.

[Jackalope]

1. What makes you all different from any enitity believing world views, when in all technical (if you're intellectually honest) are merely replacing *insert enitity here* with nature.

That would be naturalism, not atheism. Atheism is replacing *insert deity here* with **. Atheists are not necessarily naturalists.

2. In truth and honesty how do you claim objectivity when inductive reasoning use as a means to justify a full naturalist point of view?

I don't claim objectivity. I also don't claim to hold a 100% naturalist view. I do hold that natural things are all we are able to perceive with out senses. I'm happy to say "I don't know" regarding any non-natural entities or phenomena.

3. My Final question is simple, when inductively we know things do not spring out of nothing (ex nihilio) how is taking the stance nature did still not considered faith in it most general definition?

I don't take that position. I take the position of "I don't know" (and neither does anyone else, probably). As far as I know, we don't know enough about existence to indicate that creation ex nihilo is even necessary.

[bladevalant546]

1. What makes you all different from any enitity believing world views, when in all technical (if you're intellectually honest) are merely replacing *insert enitity here* with nature.

That would be naturalism, not atheism. Atheism is replacing *insert deity here* with **. Atheists are not necessarily naturalists.

2. In truth and honesty how do you claim objectivity when inductive reasoning use as a means to justify a full naturalist point of view?

I don't claim objectivity. I also don't claim to hold a 100% naturalist view. I do hold that natural things are all we are able to perceive with out senses. I'm happy to say "I don't know" regarding any non-natural entities or phenomena.

3. My Final question is simple, when inductively we know things do not spring out of nothing (ex nihilio) how is taking the stance nature did still not considered faith in it most general definition?

I don't take that position. I take the position of "I don't know" (and neither does anyone else, probably). As far as I know, we don't know enough about existence to indicate that creation ex nihilo is even necessary.

Thanks for the response, I think I understand atheism better now. And your statement on Ex Nihilo is correct.