Why are atheist...atheist?

[Epimethean]

LOL@ the idea of Epicurus being out of touch. That is the imagination of a monorail-theist at its best.

[Alastor]

Lol, man you guys need to stop looking for a fight. You sound like people who have spent so much time arguing with others over your beliefs that you are bitter and spiteful about it now.

Theists just love telling us what we believe. They never seem to do the sensible and intelligent thing and actually ask us what we believe or lack belief in anything.

If they're not telling us what we believe, they're trying to redefine atheism. This one has already used special pleading to support his beliefs. Not looking good.

Actually I'm not telling anybody anything, as I've said multiple times now, I read the definition from a dictionary. I've stated what definition I was basing my premise on so you could know where I was coming from. If that is not the correct definition, you'd have to take that up with the writers of the dictionary. And

special pleading for my beliefs. What the heck. Did I miss something?

You've carefully crafted a statement to avoid contradiction, by way of making god a factually meaningless proposition. Your model has no explanatory value, it makes no predictions, and cannot be falsified. It's an extremely weak model.

"if god can be said to, and if god can be supposed as" My friend, god cannot be said to, and cannot be supposed as, you must provide evidence for your assumptions if you wish to compare them to others assumptions. Further you must prove these assumptions before the conclusions you have reached upon said assumptions can be argued to be superior to others conclusions.

Man, who the heck said I was trying falsify or prove anything. My beliefs are based on a choice from the conclusion I explained earlier. They are no more and no less than a choice between what makes more sense "to me" and what doesn't. I cannot prove anything, which is why I have continually stated "I choose to believe". You say I need to provide evidence for my assumptions and yet I have made no objective assumptions about God whatsoever this entire thread. I have only reasoned out the nature of the beginning of existence to the best of my ability and if my reasoning is faulty, I gladly welcome anyone to show me why so that I may become wiser, not to sound like Socrates but this is very much the present case. Furthermore I only presented that belief to address a claim about me. This thread actually has nothing to do with that.

Nothing can be known about the nature of God and therefore it makes no sense to assert he doesn't exist. This was my original premise. You've made statements multiple times that show you agree with this premise. Faith no More" has also pointed out, that only strong atheist makes this assertion, which is not how the dictionary defined it. Therefore, if you are not a strong atheist then my question and assumptions about atheist clearly don't apply to you.

Maybe I'm getting cynical, but I was thinking sock puppet....but then again there are so many of them using the same tired arguments that they do start to sound alike. However, I'll bite:

It boils down to evidence - there is none. Warm, fuzzy feelings or twelfth-hand stories of miracles don't cut it.

Not sure what you mean by the sock puppet statement, but I've said nothing about miracles or warm, fuzzy feelings and at all. Philosophy is about reasoning and discovering the whats truths are inherited from a basic premise assumed true. Since nothing can be known about God I take the philosophical route. You cannot deny that there is no evidence for or against God. Therefore, to assert that he doesn't exist makes no sense. If that does not describe your beliefs, then what I've said doesn't apply to you.

You guys say I am looking down your beliefs from my premise, and that I think my beliefs are superior but it seems to me that the contrary is more likely to be true. You guys are so full of yourselves, belief wise, that you can't even acknowledge that my question does not apply to most of the people here, since most people here are not strong atheist. Many of you were so ready for an argument that you weren't even able to see what I was really saying and now that some of you do, you're already spited and wont be satisfied until you make me out to look completely ignorant or contradicting which, in turn, will justify your beliefs and establish the superiority you fiendishly seek.

I mean God's sake ( no pun intended)
LIGHTEN UP!

[The Grand Nudger]

I might actually be one of the most militantly atheist posters you've dealt with. I do in fact contend that gods do not exist. You should read through the posts here if you want to know why you got the reaction that you did. Your arguments are no different than any of the theists who drop by time and time again to tell us how we're "ignorant" morally/intellectually/spiritually inferior..etc etc etc. I challenged your beliefs and you withered? Either things are too complex, too improbable, or they are not, has nothing to do with belief.

You know you keep saying that nothing can be known about god, believe there are some folks here who would disagree with you (myself included for hilariously different reasons).

The thing that really eats at me, personally, is that you had enough in you to start a thread proposing that my conclusions are ignorant, but now I'm just too mean to be dealt with?

Would you like me to play my violin for you?

[ipnaf]

Far as i know, atheist choose to believe that God does not exist. My question is why?

Actually my non-belief wasn't a choice. It was a realization that I simply didn't have any reason to believe. I searched for answers for several years after becoming disillusioned with the Christian dogma I was indoctrinated with as a child. I thought I would find some writing or literature somewhere that would give me a solid reason to believe, but that was a fruitless endeavor. Prayer got me nowhere, and I eventually figured there was simply no god "out there."

I, myself, am spiritual and am not really affiliated with any religion. I choose to believe God exist because I think the laws of physics just randomly or coincidently happenening the way they did out of the infinite other possible options is rediculously unlikely. So unlikely that i choose to believe in some intelligent design instead.

This is what is commonly known as an "argument from incredulity" or "argument from ignorance" (no insult intended). I don't know how many things came about, but not knowing doesn't automatically imply that a god did it. It is just something I don't know. Plugging in a god really doesn't answer the question. It just begs another question, "Where did the god come from?"

As far as what God is like don't know. Is he an individual, a collective, or more like a computer with no real consciousness as we might call it? I couldn't answer with as much conviction as believing in God, but I do have my beliefs about his nature.

Why would this individual, collective, computer or whatever require the label of "God?"

But to just assert that God doesn't exist without any real supporting evidence is just as ignorant as religious people saying he does exist and describing what he's like. To me, it sounds like Atheist choose not to believe in God simply because it makes them feel more sure of reality, same reason religious people choose to believe.

I do not assert that God doesn't exist. I simply have no reason to believe that your assertion is true. I'm not 100% certain there is no god because I can't prove a negative, but I very strongly doubt it. Like I pointed out above, not knowing how or why we or anything else got here doesn't automatically imply a god did it. The burden of proof is on your shoulders my friend. That's basic logic.

Why not simply admit one does not know instead taking a stance of certainty? That, to me, is inherently ignorant.

Exactly!
How can you be certain there is a god? Why not simply admit you don't know?

P.S
I asked this same question on yahoo answers and for some reason offended alot of people. I thought atheist weren't not as prone to respond like religious people when someone questions there beliefs. I'm just curious, not looking to convert anyone or anything like that.

There are are a lot of uptight people on Yahoo Answers. That's why I came over here too.
A lot of people were offended because you made assumptions that were not true about many Atheists. Like in your post here, you are assuming that Atheists are certain on their stance concerning the existence of a god, and that they "chose" to disbelieve. Stating these assumptions as given come across as an insult to our intelligence and shows that you haven't talked to very many atheists, or that you simply don't want to acknowledge their responses.

- Mike

[Epimethean]

"Lol, man you guys need to stop looking for a fight. You sound like people who have spent so much time arguing with others over your beliefs that you are bitter and spiteful about it now."


You must be a fan of the Three Stooges. You poke atheism in the eye, get slapped in the face, and then come back with a "why I oughtta!"

[Ace Otana]

Actually I'm not telling anybody anything, as I've said multiple times now, I read the definition from a dictionary.

Dictionary - Atheist: A person who does not believe in God or gods.

An atheist is simply one who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. That's it.
I am an agnostic atheist, I'm not claiming anything, I have simply rejected the claim that a god or gods exist. That's it.

Even if atheism was a belief system (which it's not) I'd still lack belief in god. Nothing would change.

special pleading for my beliefs. What the heck. Did I miss something?

Your own words:

Unicorns are completely different as the nature of unicorns is fully understood and clearly not prevalent in nature. The nature of God is not fully understand, therefore is no way of recognizing the existence of his prevalence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

God is just another imaginary friend like all the rest. Why should we treat the god claim any differently? Without resulting to special pleading which is a fallacious argument.

[Alastor]

LOL@ the idea of Epicurus being out of touch. That is the imagination of a monorail-theist at its best.

Ok, let me see

First off that statement by Epicurus is way out of touch because he makes various judgments about God's character without actually knowing anything about his character, nature or his reasoning to begin with. Mainly, he makes the conjecture that a God that is able to prevent evil but doesn't must be evil himself. This is, in itself, is a very egotistical view and requires one to assume that their definition of evil is absolute and to assume that the effect of evil and his reasoning behind evil is sufficiently known to justify the claim that one who does not prevent is, themself, evil. Furthermore, it is completely possible for God to be evil, by his definition, if he exists. The rest of the statement is mostly irrelevant. Therefore, the statement is completely out of touch and unnecessary. It only has merit when you make the egotistical assumptions about God he has made.

If that quote was the first thing that came into my mind when you asked why an atheist "chose" not to believe, then it will suffice as an answer. I might not answer the question in a satisfactory manner to you, but don't ask if you're not willing to hear different opinions. What's the purpose of you pondering upon such things, if you've rigged the question, not wanting to hear anything else than what you yourself has come up with?

How have I demonstrated that I'm not open to answers and also how have I rigged the question? If that actually is the first reason that comes to mind for you and it is about the misfortune of those in a desert, I'm simply saying that his statement is out of touch.

You also appear have alot of bias in your beliefs which is fine. I'm not hear to debate anything. The God believe in is a Creator. Thats it. I don't believe the God you speak of either.

And if existence and god came of the same nothingness, then he is definitely no creator.

Explain your reasoning behind this please, because this the word Creator only implies that he created the universe. To say that both he and existence which is, at the same time, not him both came from nothingness is necessarily implying that two distinct pieces came from nothingness. When say existence from nothingness I imply one whole and intact thing came from nothingness, making either all God or not God, but not both.

[The Grand Nudger]

I failed to supply evidence for my assumptions, so I would like to argue about Epicuras instead.

On second thought I don't actually want to have a discussion where anyone disagrees with me, I'd rather continue to assume god as the creator without addressing any criticism of my assumption.

In support of my assumption, and in place of actual evidence, I offer this plate of word salad, with the provision; of course; that I do not wish to address any criticism.

[Violet]

I have to wonder why we even have these threads anymore. [gripe]Seriously... there's at least 250 repeat threads of this. What the hell does someone think they are accomplishing by making *another* one? I can totally get the second one... even a third one. Hell, I could be convinced to understand 15-30 over the course of the forum's existence. But this is ridiculous. The OP has added nothing new. There is nothing new to add. We've been over this more than 250 times. Why do it again?[/gripe]

[The Grand Nudger]

Frodo and I were just discussing that actually. It can at least be a learning experience for the OP. Whatever they take from it only they will know, but one can hope that it's something worthwhile.