Atheism vs. God's Existence

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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:

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.

Yes, we would like empirical evidence before we accept your claims about how your gods throw lightning (which seems apparent to us to be caused by differential charges between the clouds and/or the earth, resulting in a sudden exchange of electrons) and make thunder (which seems apparent to us to be caused by the rapid expansion of the air around the electron bolt), which you say we should worship according to ancient writings. I'm sorry, but we have better explanations than the magical acts of the gods, now, and it's just not a valid candidate for my belief.

Oh, were those the right gods, or no? To which magical fairy-story were you referring, then?

The one where lots of people really really really believe it, and claim that they feel in their hearts that it's true, and you think that constitutes evidence for your magical claims?

Yeah well I think Hinduism is silly, too. Definitely not a candidate for belief.

Still not the right one? Hmmm, let me think... perhaps it's the one with the "Authenticity" of the "Revealed Texts" handed down directly from God through His Prophets.

Well, I read the Qur'an, and I didn't find it to be remotely convincing as a divinely-inspired work. Definitely not a candidate for belief.

Is it the story with the divine beings of light, wielding a flaming laser-sword and guarding a magical garden containing magical snakes and magical trees of knowledge, where they claim mankind was made out of clay and women out of ribs, when the world was magically created 6000 years ago?

Because I think that one's as silly as the rest of them. Definitely not a candidate for belief.

Please, then, tell me which one you mean, and why I should reject all the others but accept that one, lest I be labeled a "Positivist" and sneered at for wanting some verifiable evidence of your magical claims before thinking they're real.

Oh, I know which one it is -- it's that cult where they say you have to join the cult and really really really believe, and THEN you'll understand!!

Nah. Don't like cults.

[wiploc]

But you are born a atheist since you don't know anything about a god.
...

Yes and no. Technically, I'd say no. Because the baby's brain isn't evolved enough to comprehend the concept or the question.

An atheist is a person who is not a theist.  Babies qualify. 

If you want a more restrictive definition (and some definitions in some dictionaries will support you on this) then you can say that an atheist is a person who (1) is not a theist, and (2) has a brain developed enough to comprehend the idea of gods. 

If we use that more-restricted definition, it doesn't change the fact that theists were atheists first.  The only (statistically nonexistent) exception would be if somebody gave a child a religious sales pitch at the exact moment at which the child became able to comprehend the idea of gods.  And even then that child would have to not merely hear the sales pitch but be persuaded by it at that key moment. 

That notion doesn't really flow off the tongue, so I'm willing to abbreviate it, to say it this way: "We are all born atheist."



New point:  If we require atheists to have brains evolved enough to comprehend the concept or the question of gods, then there may be some question as to whether I qualify.  And so many theists have contradictory ideas on the subject that they may not qualify either. 

You wind up thinking there should be some middle ground between A and not-A, as in, "She's not a theist, but she also isn't a non-theist." 

Ignostic?

I get in trouble talking to ignostics.  I mis-guess their stance, and have to look it up again to see that I misrepresented them.  

So I'm pretty sure you can't be an ignostic if you are too young to understand the idea of gods.  

The easiest neatest way to classify babies is to call them "implicit atheists."  Explicit atheists have considered the idea of gods without being persuaded.  Implicit atheists haven't even thought about it.  Babies are the perfect example, plus boys who were raised by wolves.  

That's like saying we're all born stupid because we don't know what 1+1 is? It's a non sequitur.

I like that example, but I'll change it a little:  For "stupid," substitute "non-mathematician."  

We are all born non-mathematicians.  Some of us change to become mathematicians, and some of us don't. 

Even those of us who are too young and undeveloped to be able to understand numbers are non-mathematicians.  And even those of us who are too young and undeveloped to be theists are non-theists, also known as atheists.

[ignoramus]

It's all a little convoluted if you ask me.

Everyone is born not collecting stamps or not believing in Santa. What are they called? Etc, Ad infinitum...

Let's not put god in a special category, otherwise we're special pleading for him subconsciously.

[robvalue]

We only bother having a word for atheism because over half the world believe in fairy stories. I can easily imagine a future where the word becomes obselete.

I'm comfortable saying a baby doesn't collect stamps, and doesn't believe in unicorns. But it's just a matter of definition. I think it's also reasonable to have a category for those who haven't processed the claim instead. "Babies have never heard of gods". Pretty straightforward. How do they learn about them? Parents talking shit in their ear hole. Would they "find" any of the popular gods if they never heard about them? No.

[Edwardo Piet]

Did I ever tell anyone I'm a non-astrologer?

[ignoramus]

Did I ever tell anyone I'm a non-astrologer?

You're joking, aren't you!

Did you know I'm an non phrenologist?  I basically don't do head jobs!  

I'm also non gay! I'm bloody weird, I tell ya!~

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm non-non-turtle.

[Mister Agenda]

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:

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.

You have days when you're quite the little asshole, don't you?

[Mister Agenda]

I was not clear. In the context of the discussion of positivism, science cannot have an opinion as to the question "does God exists". Science cannot prove or disprove God. God is not the subject of empirical verification. 

There wasn't a discussion of positivism until you decided to label us positivists.

[Aoi Magi]

If you say so...but I;d caution against removing a solid line of confirmation for ones beliefs....particularly if were going to refer to....


-all of which are well documented failures.  

So, now..what do we have left?  A free floating belief with no known method of confirmation?  If only christers would accept such a thing......

I was not clear. In the context of the discussion of positivism, science cannot have an opinion as to the question "does God exists". Science cannot prove or disprove God. God is not the subject of empirical verification. 

Evidence from science can be used to support, deny, or undercut premises about the nature of reality and a possible intersection between the natural and the supernatural. 

I keep hearing that the natural theology arguments are well documented failures. Just because a group of self-congratulatory atheist say it over and over on a forum does not make it so.  Since they are logically valid (the conclusions follow from the premises), you don't think believing the premises are true is warranted. However, when asked for defeaters, most are versions of 'we don't know'. When finally pushed, the more intelligent among you concludes something like 'it does't prove God exists...it just makes those who already believe feel better about their belief.' So...how is this predictable chain of events 'a well documented failure' for a probabilistic argument? 

Confirmation comes from natural theology, direct revelation, and personal experience.

Well I understand your point that god is a metaphysical concept and that science strictly deals with reality so science can't prove god. I really do!
But, you see, the problem is, your scriptures and pretty much any scripture of the known religions, depicts the god/s always willing to show proof and evidence whenever someone asked their followers for proof, like lighting defenceless animals on fire, or killing defenceless children, or directly talking to people and have them kill defenceless animals or children... but in these days when we do have the means to truly test and verify those claims, suddenly it seems gods somehow went beyond providing those proofs which they supposedly did present themselves.
Weird huh!