Why Atheism?

[bladevalant546]

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

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.

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?

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?

Thanks for the answers ahead of time, I mean these in all seriousness as these main questions are in fact ones that make me raise and eye brow to some of the atheistic claims. Peace and be safe !

[rexbeccarox]

You haven't read much of the forum, have you?

[Esquilax]

1: Are we replacing gods with nature, though? We don't worship nature, though many of us admire it. I think, if you spend a little time looking around, the thing that'll strike you hardest is just how diverse our opinions and beliefs actually are. There's no atheist dogma, no strictures or organizational structure that one must be a part of; atheism is a single position on the existence of gods, nothing else.

2: Who's claiming objectivity? I obviously can't speak for all atheists (see point the first) but I'm not claiming certain knowledge or an objective standard; merely that religions of all stripes have not yet demonstrated their claims to be true according to the burden of proof that they have. "I don't know," is hardly a claim to objectivity, is it?

3: Once again, the stance isn't "nature came into being out of nothing," but "I don't know how the universe came into being, and so far no religion has demonstrated that they know either, though they profess otherwise." Atheism isn't an idea about creators it's an idea about gods, and more specifically, religions.

Besides, how do you know things don't come from nothing, on a universal scale? Do you know something we don't? Ever been to the big bang? Measured it? Do you have another universe with which you can run tests to prove this claim?

See, that's the fundamental thing, here; my atheism does exactly one thing for me. It gives me the perspective to stop myself from making blanket claims about things I cannot possibly know for sure.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

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.

As in, natural process instead of raingod? Accuracy. That would be the difference.

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 your using the word t mean in this context. Objectivity as in objective truth, or objectivity as it it relates to subjectivity (specifically in the case of inductive reasoning and forming arguments based upon experience)?

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?

The short answer is "who takes this on faith" - the long answer is that what you are ultimately referring to might not be an area where our conceptions or systems of arranging "correct thoughts" are even remotely applicable. Not only do we not know where -it all came from-, there are reasons to suspect that as it stands, we do not have the ability to figure that out.

[Zen Badger]

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

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 we have evidence for Nature.

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?

This makes no sense at all.

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?

So where did god come from?

Thanks for the answers ahead of time, I mean these in all seriousness as these main questions are in fact ones that make me raise and eye brow to some of the atheistic claims. Peace and be safe !

[pocaracas]

Atheistics claims?
Last I checked we just didn't accept the theistic claims... everything else just flows...

[bladevalant546]

1: Are we replacing gods with nature, though? We don't worship nature, though many of us admire it. I think, if you spend a little time looking around, the thing that'll strike you hardest is just how diverse our opinions and beliefs actually are. There's no atheist dogma, no strictures or organizational structure that one must be a part of; atheism is a single position on the existence of gods, nothing else.

((Hmm, true enough there you make a valid point. I am have now noticed this personally. Thanks I wanted to confirm and see a straight line answer.))

2: Who's claiming objectivity? I obviously can't speak for all atheists (see point the first) but I'm not claiming certain knowledge or an objective standard; merely that religions of all stripes have not yet demonstrated their claims to be true according to the burden of proof that they have. "I don't know," is hardly a claim to objectivity, is it?

((Good, back in my apologectic days (I was a rather potent one). Most of the atheists claim objectivity. And Yes I dont know is the most intellectually honest thing a person can say. And yes I agree with you on religions.))


3: Once again, the stance isn't "nature came into being out of nothing," but "I don't know how the universe came into being, and so far no religion has demonstrated that they know either, though they profess otherwise." Atheism isn't an idea about creators it's an idea about gods, and more specifically, religions.

((I honestly agree with your statement as you explained above. Atheism does not make a claim in regards to creators (or lack thereof) more the idea of our perceptions of gods? Correct me if I am wrong.))

Besides, how do you know things don't come from nothing, on a universal scale? Do you know something we don't? Ever been to the big bang? Measured it? Do you have another universe with which you can run tests to prove this claim?

((Well inductively and through current observation we can make an educated guess, now deductively I do not know, and have no evidence. Now concering the big bang yes I have been to one. It is one wild party, but I was to drunk to remember anything. However I woke up with two hot stars. <----could not resist))

See, that's the fundamental thing, here; my atheism does exactly one thing for me. It gives me the perspective to stop myself from making blanket claims about things I cannot possibly know for sure.

((Thanks for the answers, it kinda broadens my view on atheism, as stated I used to be a pretty good (atleast I thought so) apologist. And you really only see a small part of athiesm.

[Esquilax]

((Good, back in my apologectic days (I was a rather potent one). Most of the atheists claim objectivity. And Yes I dont know is the most intellectually honest thing a person can say. And yes I agree with you on religions.))

No doubt there are atheists that claim objectivity, but that doesn't reflect on all of us, because in the end there's nothing to really claim objective knowledge of. When you join a religion you're given to believing in a god or creator, and no matter the individual reasons for believing, one does so in order to gain the benefits of that god's favor and avoid the detriments of his wrath. Implicit in this is assumed knowledge that such a god exists- after all, why would you follow a religion if you didn't think the god it worships exist?

Meanwhile, atheism can take on any shade of asserted knowledge, from my own preferred "I don't know," to a hardline "no gods, no sir, no how," stance, and while those are both atheism, they aren't reflective of Atheism as a concept.

((I honestly agree with your statement as you explained above. Atheism does not make a claim in regards to creators (or lack thereof) more the idea of our perceptions of gods? Correct me if I am wrong.))

Got it in one. My claim is about my lack of concrete knowledge, and implicit in that is an acceptance of the possibility of a conscious cause for the universe, even a guiding hand in the creation and execution of life; I just don't know what it is, and think that if it does exist it's being remarkably subtle. Religious claims give that creator a form and shape and thoughts, but haven't been able to provide support for any of that; in short, there could be a creator, but it doesn't seem like it's the one any given theist is thinking of.

((Thanks for the answers, it kinda broadens my view on atheism, as stated I used to be a pretty good (atleast I thought so) apologist. And you really only see a small part of athiesm.

It's good that you're asking questions. The absolute best thing that one can do is expose themselves to viewpoints that they disagree with, or even just haven't been exposed to before. There's myriad uses for that, including plain old entertainment.

[bladevalant546]

Yea, what you describe seems more logical now when i think about. Thanks.

To answer the question "We have evidence for nature." I think this evidence is neutral. It does not render support of naturalism nor theism. It is simply as such....is. God or creator/entity is a philosophical one not a scientific one atleast with our current level of technology.

My question on objectivty mainly deals with making statments such as "Atheism has evidence" That is an objective claim considering you have used deductive logic to determine the claim. It very much the same boat as a theist stating he has objective evidence for God.

And to "Where did God come from." A logical and smart apologetic will eat this question easily. According to theistic beliefs, God is an enitity not with in this universe (such things can exist as the Multi-verse theory claims) with that designation. God cannot be bound by our laws of physics or time, laws of logic, or any barriers that might exist in this universe. Reason behind this is simple, what is in our universe obey those universe's laws. What is outside might not obey those laws. In conclusion God can always have existed, and since time does not affect this enitity he does not require a beginning. That is simple logic, and yes it can apply to naturalistic theories too.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yea, what you describe seems more logical now when i think about. Thanks.

To answer the question "We have evidence for nature." I think this evidence is neutral. It does not render support of naturalism nor theism. It is simply as such....is. God or creator/entity is a philosophical one not a scientific one atleast with our current level of technology.

I disagree vehemently, and would ask you how you know this to be the case- in any case. I suspect that you merely -prefer- that god be philosophical, as it likely means, to you, not already falsified and not able to be falsified.

My question on objectivty mainly deals with making statments such as "Atheism has evidence" That is an objective claim considering you have used deductive logic to determine the claim. It very much the same boat as a theist stating he has objective evidence for God.

Atheism needs no evidence (at least no evidence of any existent god), it's a statement regarding belief. The only evidence an atheist would need for atheism to be true is evidence that they do not believe. I'll take them at their word on that one - but we could probably arrange a test..lol.

And to "Where did God come from." A logical and smart apologetic will eat this question easily.

No, it won't.

According to theistic beliefs, God is an enitity not with in this universe (such things can exist as the Multi-verse theory claims) with that designation. God cannot be bound by our laws of physics or time, laws of logic, or any barriers that might exist in this universe. Reason behind this is simple, what is in our universe obey those universe's laws. What is outside might not obey those laws. In conclusion God can always have existed, and since time does not affect this enitity he does not require a beginning. That is simple logic, and yes it can apply to naturalistic theories too.

Right, so, "god" is not present within our universe. That's exactly what I've been telling the religious.