How do you become an Atheist?

[coffeeveritas]

OK, in the last thread I started I saw that the atheists here cite "burden of proof" as to why they do not believe in God. The atheist is not making any claims about the supernatural and therefore those that do make claims about the supernatural have the burden of proof. I also saw a lot of references to a belief in scientific thinking, and one person stated that their belief in science superseded belief in God. It was a surprisingly unanimous opinion and I found it to be fascinating, especially in how exactly it lined up with Modern thinking. I was hoping you could help understand a few more things.

First of all, I would like to hear what idea, concept, proof, or experience brought each of you personally to be Atheist. I know that you all profess that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims, you explained that to me quite well, but the "burden of proof" viewpoint is an assumption that Atheists make, so it would most likely be something you arrived at after deciding there is no God. I think most of you agreed with me that no one could argue a Christian out of faith, and that everyone will tend to believe what they believe until they are given sufficient reasons to change. So what I'm asking is what is it that made you decide to that you were firmly atheist? Or if you were raised in an Atheist home, what is it that made you decide that you personally were going to continue in your parent's (or parents') tradition?

Bonus question: What do you think of the work of Post-Modern philosophers in relation to your Modernist stance? To be sure Post-modernists were no fans of Christianity either, but they seriously challenge much of Modern thought. In specific I would cite Derrida's claim that everything is an interpretation, and Lyotard's assertion that meta-narratives are unreliable. For example, the Modernist meta-narrative of the single, objective, scientific truth that would solve all the world's problems, and it's corollary, the privileged status of science.

I really feel like the last thread gave me a good idea of the basic stance of Atheism, but there is so much more to understand. As with the last thread I'm more interested in seeing what you have to say, but if your reason for becoming an Atheist was a certain proof and you'd like me to take a crack at it, just make a note of it and I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll just be listening. I can't wait to hear from you and thank you for your input.

[Darwinian]

I was born an atheist and during my impressionable years no-one tried to indoctrinate me into any particular faith. Instead I learned about evolution, natural history, astronomy etc. etc. By the time things like God, Jesus, Noah's Ark, Creation and the Bible were mentioned to me I was past the time in my life when I would just simply believe because I was told to. Basically I had built up a healthy immunity to the religious virus. And I really do see it as a kind of virus that infects its host in such a way as to propagate itself further.

So, nothing brought me to atheism as it is the natural state of the human mind unless infected. I simply have absolutely no reason to accept the beliefs of those who lived many, many generations ago and who lacked the basic scientific knowledge that we have today. To me that's akin to taking a sick child to a witch doctor rather than a hospital. Just doesn't make any sense.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

OK, in the last thread I started I saw that the atheists here cite "burden of proof" as to why they do not believe in God. The atheist is not making any claims about the supernatural and therefore those that do make claims about the supernatural have the burden of proof. I also saw a lot of references to a belief in scientific thinking, and one person stated that their belief in science superseded belief in God. It was a surprisingly unanimous opinion and I found it to be fascinating, especially in how exactly it lined up with Modern thinking. I was hoping you could help understand a few more things.

First of all, I would like to hear what idea, concept, proof, or experience brought each of you personally to be Atheist. I know that you all profess that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims, you explained that to me quite well, but the "burden of proof" viewpoint is an assumption that Atheists make, so it would most likely be something you arrived at after deciding there is no God. I think most of you agreed with me that no one could argue a Christian out of faith, and that everyone will tend to believe what they believe until they are given sufficient reasons to change. So what I'm asking is what is it that made you decide to that you were firmly atheist? Or if you were raised in an Atheist home, what is it that made you decide that you personally were going to continue in your parent's (or parents') tradition?

I'm going to explain this simply and quickly at first and I'll explain it further if you wish me to, but my atheism is based entirely on the empirical evidence presented to me.
Science has all of it and religion has none of it - but it doesn't end there because the evidence science has actively contradicts many of the claims that religion makes.
The genesis myth, for example, is contradicted by numerous sciences that date back centuries - from all of biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and numerous things I'm otherwise forgetting.

All of this is also to say that I don't simply "believe" science. I do not have faith in science so much as science as proven itself beyond a reasonable doubt that it works and that it can solve problems and answer questions.
Religion does all of this by making up the answers and presenting them as informed.

Bonus question: What do you think of the work of Post-Modern philosophers in relation to your Modernist stance? To be sure Post-modernists were no fans of Christianity either, but they seriously challenge much of Modern thought. In specific I would cite Derrida's claim that everything is an interpretation, and Lyotard's assertion that meta-narratives are unreliable. For example, the Modernist meta-narrative of the single, objective, scientific truth that would solve all the world's problems, and it's corollary, the privileged status of science.

I really feel like the last thread gave me a good idea of the basic stance of Atheism, but there is so much more to understand. As with the last thread I'm more interested in seeing what you have to say, but if your reason for becoming an Atheist was a certain proof and you'd like me to take a crack at it, just make a note of it and I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll just be listening. I can't wait to hear from you and thank you for your input.

I don't care much for philosophy so there really isn't a whole lot I can say on the topic.

[theVOID]

OK, in the last thread I started I saw that the atheists here cite "burden of proof" as to why they do not believe in God. The atheist is not making any claims about the supernatural and therefore those that do make claims about the supernatural have the burden of proof. I also saw a lot of references to a belief in scientific thinking, and one person stated that their belief in science superseded belief in God. It was a surprisingly unanimous opinion and I found it to be fascinating, especially in how exactly it lined up with Modern thinking. I was hoping you could help understand a few more things.

Sure, fire away

First of all, I would like to hear what idea, concept, proof, or experience brought each of you personally to be Atheist.

I was born one. Some years later the religious studies teachers at my school told me the bible was true, and being a 5 year old not capable of thinking about it I bought into their bullshit. I figured out young that there was nothing of substance to any of it, nothing more than a bunch of assertions and myths. Being really into ancient Egyptian culture when I was young and seeing many other religious myths further convinced me.

That has nothing to do with why I'm an Atheist intellectually, that has entirely epistemic foundations.

I know that you all profess that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims, you explained that to me quite well, but the "burden of proof" viewpoint is an assumption that Atheists make, so it would most likely be something you arrived at after deciding there is no God.

The burden of proof is something irrespective of a particular situation like theism VS athsim, any person who makes a positive claim has the burden of proof, and that is essentially to say "you're the one who made the claim, I have no requirement to show that your belief cannot possibly be true, rather you are required to justify it"

It's plainly obvious that the positive claim in this situation is "God exists".

Similarly, if a Gnostic atheist claims "God's do not exist" then because that is a positive claim they too have the burden of proof, they are required to disprove whatever particular god they are talking about.

As an agnostic atheist my position is "I don't know of any valid reasons to believe in god", which is not a positive claim, it's an assessment of the dozen or so arguments for his existence (in various forms) that I know of and a claim that I can demonstrate them to be flawed, it is also an invitation for arguments to be presented.

As you are the one who is defining this concept all I can do is evaluate the specific claim that you make. To attempt to define and disprove God would only disprove one particular formulation, and since God can be ad hoced to infinity even if my formulation represented someone's beliefs it's still rather futile as the theist can simply change part of their concept.

I think most of you agreed with me that no one could argue a Christian out of faith, and that everyone will tend to believe what they believe until they are given sufficient reasons to change.

Most Christians that became atheists did so in response to an argument or through reading the bible, so in some cases you can argue someone out of an illogical position, provided they care more about intellect than emotion and experience. If their subjective experience takes priority then not only can you not argue them out of the position intellectually, but there is no point in having the debate to begin with.

So what I'm asking is what is it that made you decide to that you were firmly atheist? Or if you were raised in an Atheist home, what is it that made you decide that you personally were going to continue in your parent's (or parents') tradition?

I became interested in the debate, I evaluated the arguments for the existence of God and believe I am entirely justified in rejecting all of the arguments for his existence. If you disagree provide an argument for his existence and i'll just point out the fallacies.

Bonus question: What do you think of the work of Post-Modern philosophers in relation to your Modernist stance? To be sure Post-modernists were no fans of Christianity either, but they seriously challenge much of Modern thought.

Postmodernism is relativism gone mad, some of their relativism is valid, but they also end up rejecting some plainly demonstrable objective truths and really really like to rape definitions to make their arguments stand.

In specific I would cite Derrida's claim that everything is an interpretation, and Lyotard's assertion that meta-narratives are unreliable. For example, the Modernist meta-narrative of the single, objective, scientific truth that would solve all the world's problems, and it's corollary, the privileged status of science.

Science has nothing to do with solving problems or giving value anyway, so the whole argument is pointless. To complain that science can't solve disputes about values is like complaining when my car doesn't fly, it's not supposed to.

I really feel like the last thread gave me a good idea of the basic stance of Atheism, but there is so much more to understand. As with the last thread I'm more interested in seeing what you have to say, but if your reason for becoming an Atheist was a certain proof and you'd like me to take a crack at it, just make a note of it and I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll just be listening. I can't wait to hear from you and thank you for your input.

There are two ways you could convince me that a God exists.

1. Present an argument for the existence of God that satisfies my epistemology.

2. Falsify my epistemology and provide one that is logically coherent and can establish belief in God as epistemically justified.

If you could achieve either of them then I would be obliged to believe, else I would be a flaming cunt of a hypocrite and display the same double standards that theists use to reject contradictory experience etc.

[Ace Otana]

I would like to hear what idea, concept, proof, or experience brought each of you personally to be Atheist.

I was born atheist, so nothing brought me to atheism. I continued through life as an atheist because there is no evidence for a god. It's an epic claim and needs epic evidence, for which it has none.

I know that you all profess that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims, you explained that to me quite well, but the "burden of proof" viewpoint is an assumption that Atheists make, so it would most likely be something you arrived at after deciding there is no God.

The burden of proof is easy to understand. If I claimed that there were pink space rabbits hiding under the moons surface, the burden of proof would be on me, it's expected of me to prove it. Since I claimed it. No one else bares the burden of proof. The same goes with god. Theists claim there is a god and so it's down to them to prove it. No evidence....well no belief. I don't go around accepting huge baseless claims. It's irrational. If I can believe in god without evidence, I would be foolish enough to believe in anything without evidence.

So what I'm asking is what is it that made you decide to that you were firmly atheist? Or if you were raised in an Atheist home, what is it that made you decide that you personally were going to continue in your parent's (or parents') tradition?

Lack of evidence and the fact that religion made no sense at all. That it's full of holes. I was raised in a very secular environment. My town has a huge population of atheists, but this wasn't the reason behind my atheism. My continued atheism was caused by lack of evidence for a god and the fact that it made no sense and had no credibility. The more I learnt about god and religion, the stronger the atheist I became.
Some people can jump to such beliefs but not me. The school, nor the church knew that all the teachings that they gave was only causing me to move further away from it all.

[Paul the Human]

The reasoning behind my atheism is more or less the same as the people who posted before me, but I will put it in as simple of terms as possible. I do not believe the claims that god exists, because I have never encountered, nor been presented with a convincing and/or compelling reason to believe those claims... let alone actual evidence to support them.

I'm not much of a fan of philosophy, either. It all seems like mental gymnastics to me... and I don't care how you word the claim that god exists, or what mental gymnastics you take to get there... none of it makes the claim true, nor does it give me any reason to believe that it is.

[theVOID]

If philosophy seems like mental gymnastics then you haven't really examined it much

Epistemology, ethics and philosophy of mind are all extremely useful, they often cross into empirical and pragmatic realms.

[Autumnlicious]

I've decided that physics is philosophy. A scientists philosophy of the amazing complexity of nature itself approximated by us into what we can comprehend and predict.

To hold knowledge, however small, about the inner workings of the universe is to know the universe, and by extension, yourself.

I've yet to see a bona-fide degree carrying philosopher match up against the likes of Feynman, Einstein and Newton.

[theVOID]

I've decided that physics is philosophy. A scientists philosophy of the amazing complexity of nature itself approximated by us into what we can comprehend and predict.

Scientists have a philosophy (most commonly methodological naturalism) but I don't see how that gets to Physics == Philosophy.

You can have a philosophy (interpretation) of physics, but physics exists without an interpreter.

To hold knowledge, however small, about the inner workings of the universe is to know the universe, and by extension, yourself.

Agreed, while it's not necessarily practically applicable to know that I'm the product of some quark-gluon plasma long since expired, it does change the way you reflect on things, and ultimately how you assign value to objects and states of affairs.

Knowing that we're star dust makes it imo impossible to assign any value to life other than to say that life is valuable to the living. We're no more cosmically valuable than anything else.

[Minimalist]

The realization, when I was 20 and taking Roman History in college, that the bible story had enough holes in it to drive a truck through. I had already decided that catholicism was just a control mechanism run for the benefit of the priests but I never knew it was all based on a lie until then.

I never paid much attention to the OT until 2000 when I read The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein. With the understanding that the OT was bullshit, too, the circle was pretty much complete.