Why are atheist...atheist?

[fr0d0]

Simple. Evidence.

There is no evidence for the existence of god.
There is a great deal of evidence that every god of every religious belief system is man made.

Ergo, Atheism.

There's the whole history and nature of mankind = evidence. But we'll sweep that under the carpet
& how odd that people should be the author of a human form of communication. I'm with you there 100%.

Your god is a creator god, a tinkerer, a designer of things. These are falsifiable claims.

Please falsify them then. I can help and erect some straw men for you if you'd like.

---

Natural selection does indeed have an effect on god. Specifically creator gods that dropped us into a garden exactly as we are now, along with everything else exactly as it is now, at some undetermined time in the past. In reverse, had we happened upon a verifiable ancient text that presented us with a picture of the archaeological record before we'd ever dug the first hole, signed by god, so to speak, that would've been a hell of an argument for god, wouldn't it?

Ah right so for it to be "God" doing it we'd need some "God was 'ere" graffiti. Next we'd need some contradictory theology stating physical proof was in fact possible after all. Best get rid of the bible then. And lastly, we'd have to demote God to innocent bystander and get him to take his hands off the controls. You know I think we cracked it!

[thebigfudge]

"There's the whole history and nature of mankind = evidence. But we'll sweep that under the carpet"


That's evidence of the "history and nature of mankind" Not God. You Cant shoehorn an argument for God into a statement he/she/it has no part off.

[Kayenneh]

This is why.

Also, the whole definition of a god is vague, but if it is a higher being that supposedly created everything (but was not created itself) and judges us etc. etc., I still wouldn't follow that shithead. Sure, I would acknowledge that such a thing existed, if it was actually proven to me, and not based on anyones hunches or personal beliefs, feelings and perceptions.

[fr0d0]

That's evidence of the "history and nature of mankind" Not God. You Cant shoehorn an argument for God into a statement he/she/it has no part off.

So our observations don't count? OK. Nor our personal experience? No, thought not. Must we really prove that God exists contradicting the nature of God described in the bible? What God are we trying to prove by the way??

[Kayenneh]

What God are we trying to prove by the way??

Is there, according to you, more than one..?

[thebigfudge]

That's evidence of the "history and nature of mankind" Not God. You Cant shoehorn an argument for God into a statement he/she/it has no part off.

So our observations don't count? OK. Nor our personal experience? No, thought not. Must we really prove that God exists contradicting the nature of God described in the bible? What God are we trying to prove by the way??

Well if personal experience counted, then everyone's personal experience must count ? . Ie Islam, Christianity, Scientology, Hinduism, pyschic's, Nessie believers, bhuddists. ( this list could go on and on, but I am sure you get my point)This would bring up numerous contradictions. so NO personal experience does not count.

What observations are you talking about, can you elaborate ?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Far as i know, atheist choose to believe that God does not exist.

I didn't read further. Your assumption is wrong as a general principle. One either believes a proposition or does not.
Theist do not choose to be theists.Usually,their beliefs are absorbed uncritically before the age of reason. Few people ever question such beliefs.


It seems to me there are many paths to atheism,but all end with the person simply unable to believe;there is no choice involved.

A good analogy would be to claim a person chooses to be gay or straight.

Oh,PS; Like most people here,I'm an agnostic atheist.That means I assert "I do not believe due to lack of credible evidence". I do NOT assert "there is no god" or "I believe god does not exist" IE I make no claims, so have no burden of proof.That honour belongs 100% to the theist (or 'spiritual person') who want me to share his beliefs.

Thought for the day If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be any (Greg House,supreme narcissist, drug addict and professional cunt)

[Alastor]

This is to FaithNoMore

Simple. Evidence.

There is no evidence for the existence of god.
There is a great deal of evidence that every god of every religious belief system is man made.

Ergo, Atheism.

You've attempted to leverage the deists god as an argument against atheism, and then immediately described this unknowable force only a few sentences later. Your god is a creator god, a tinkerer, a designer of things. These are falsifiable claims.

I said I choose to believe in a designer because it is "unlikely" that out of nothingness with infinite potential came specificness with nothingness have no constraints or bias to become so specific. Certainly it is possible, just unlikely, which I think is a rational statement.

I choose not to believe in god as much as I choose not to believe in uinicorns.

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.

Results of something being unlikely mean nothing. If I were to randomly pick a person on this planet, it would be very unlikely it would be you. Does that mean god exists if it did turn out to be you? [[

Lol, no of course not, but thats precisely my point. If you did pick me, lets say 10x in a row are you to go against the odds and assume that it was just coincidence or are you going to assume that there was something in the experiment that creates a bias that makes me more likely to be picked. I didn't say the laws of physics were proof of God, I just said they made an unintelligent design very unlikely. In fact, too unlikely for me.

You did not choose to believe in god, you chose to fill the unknown with god. In other words, you don't know so it must be god. Atheists do not fall victim to such insufficient thinking.

For me God is any being or conscious that at least has the property that it created the universe. Now, for specificness to come from infinite with no bias or constraints whatsoever, I say that it is "likely" to be an intelligent design or someone who actually had the ability to choose, not that is must be. Again for an atheist to say God doesn't exist without any evidence is just as assertive a claim as saying he does exist. However, again, I choose to believe he exist merely from a probability point of view. Atheist choose not believe because there isn't they anything they consider evidence for his existence, even though, at the same time, there is also no evidence against him and also the nature God is not fully understood therefore evidence would not even recognizable if were to exist. Yet still you will assert he doesn't exist, which is why say atheist reason for saying he doesn't exist is similar to religious people. How is this type if sufficient thinking profitable?

Again, I did not choose to believe in god, I weighed the facts and saw no evidence for god.

And also no evidence against.

Like I said, most atheists do not take a stance of certainty except for on specific gods, like the Christian one. You, however, are asserting with just as much certainty as anyone else that there is a god, proving you don't even understand your own beliefs.



There is no evidence against any God be it Jehovah, Allah, or Brahman but it is unlikely for obvious reasons. However, if you do not assert that God does not exist and are open to the possibility of his existence then what I was saying does not apply to you because you are really admitting that you do not know. I read the definition of atheist before I asked the question and it said an atheist was someone who denies the existence of God. So my question really geared more toward that kind of atheist.

Yeah, people will give you a pissy answer when you insult them as you ask the question, just as you have done here. I deduce from your questions and the way they are worded that you are not actually looking for answers, but just a reason to feel superior, hence the comments about atheists being ignorant. You have judged people before you even understand what they believe, and come across as being smug and sincere in your beliefs the way any theist does. Seeing how you ask your questions, you yourself are profoundly simple minded for not expecting insults.

If someone asked about my beliefs in the same way I wouldn't get mad or insulting at all. I'd just show them where they were wrong. The premise I set up in the question for the choice of atheist to deny the existence of God, again not you from what I've read, is inherently ignorant and I tell you why. I'm not insulting anyone it is just true. If the premise I set up is wrong than thats a different story. Thats why I explained my premise so thoroughly in the first place. So people can see where I'm coming from and tell me where my premise went wrong. Smugness and superiority is just your imagination.

---

Natural selection does indeed have an effect on god. Specifically creator gods that dropped us into a garden exactly as we are now, along with everything else exactly as it is now, at some undetermined time in the past. In reverse, had we happened upon a verifiable ancient text that presented us with a picture of the archaeological record before we'd ever dug the first hole, signed by god, so to speak, that would've been a hell of an argument for god, wouldn't it?

You are referring to Christianity and similar religions and, as I've, stated I'm not religious.

---

='Kayenneh' pid='153553' dateline='1310459063']


This is why.

Also, the whole definition of a god is vague, but if it is a higher being that supposedly created everything (but was not created itself) and judges us etc. etc., I still wouldn't follow that shithead. Sure, I would acknowledge that such a thing existed, if it was actually proven to me, and not based on anyones hunches or personal beliefs, feelings and perceptions.

That quote from epicurus is ridiculously out of touch, not one statement makes any sense and I will explain why if you'd like.

Also the definition of God is vague, which is exactly why I say It doesn't make sense to assert he doesn't exist. If an atheist is open to his existence then my question does not apply because he is using the word atheist to admit he really doesn't know, which is what I've suggested made more sense in the first place.

Furthermore, existence came from nothingness whether God was there or not so the problem of God creating himself is not a mystery associated with his existence but reality and therefore should have no bearings as an argument for or against his existence. Also, you assume he judges us, perhaps from religious text, but again I've already shown that religious beliefs are also inherently ignorant.

Also to acknowledge his existence is one thing but to deny his existence is a another. You'd also need proof for that too, unless you were bias toward believing he didn't exist and that as I've shown is no different from religious people. Once again, let me just make it clear that anyone who is open to possibility of God's existence is really just saying he doesn't know. To flat out deny his existence is saying you know which is inherent ignorance.

---

Far as i know, atheist choose to believe that God does not exist.

I didn't read further. Your assumption is wrong as a general principle. One either believes a proposition or does not.
Theist do not choose to be theists.Usually,their beliefs are absorbed uncritically before the age of reason. Few people ever question such beliefs.


It seems to me there are many paths to atheism,but all end with the person simply unable to believe;there is no choice involved.

A good analogy would be to claim a person chooses to be gay or straight.

Oh,PS; Like most people here,I'm an agnostic atheist.That means I assert "I do not believe due to lack of credible evidence". I do NOT assert "there is no god" or "I believe god does not exist" IE I make no claims, so have no burden of proof.That honour belongs 100% to the theist (or 'spiritual person') who want me to share his beliefs.

Thought for the day If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be any (Greg House,supreme narcissist, drug addict and professional cunt)

You, like anyone else (including spiritual persons) , are not expected to have a burden of proof but are expected to have the burden of reasoning. Your reason as I've read is that there is no evidence. This is fine, except, like I've said, to say there is no evidence requires one to "assume" what the nature of God is and then look for its prevalence in reality; thus requiring one to pretend they know what they do not which is no different than religious people. If I were to do this I might also be atheist except I wouldn't even know what to look for to discern as evidence for his existence and I'll admit that. Which is why my reason has nothing to do with what I'm actually seeing in the present reality. The fact is there no evidence for or against the existence of God. Therefore only a bias, assuming God's nature and what he is like, would allow you to reason that you are unable to believe in God.

However, still, my question is more geared toward those who would deny God's existence. If most people here do not then they are really saying they do not know which is fine by me.

[Faith No More]

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.

That part in bold is why I am an atheist. Because I cannot recognize god, I have no belief in him. I just used unicorns as an example of why not believing in god is not a choice, but merely an observation.

Lol, no of course not, but thats precisely my point. If you did pick me, lets say 10x in a row are you to go against the odds and assume that it was just coincidence or are you going to assume that there was something in the experiment that creates a bias that makes me more likely to be picked. I didn't say the laws of physics were proof of God, I just said they made an unintelligent design very unlikely. In fact, too unlikely for me.

How do you go about defining the probability for the laws of physics? What are the chances the laws of physics could be different? You can't answer these but are not afraid to speculate on them.

...I choose to believe he exist merely from a probability point of view.

No, you didn't choose, you reached a conclusion based on your view of the probability. For it to be a choice, you would have had to weigh no evidence at all.

Atheist choose not believe because there isn't they anything they consider evidence for his existence, even though, at the same time, there is also no evidence against him and also the nature God is not fully understood therefore evidence would not even recognizable if were to exist.

Again, beliefs based on observations of evidence are not choice but conclusions. Do you choose to believe the sky is blue?

Yet still you will assert he doesn't exist, which is why say atheist reason for saying he doesn't exist is similar to religious people. How is this type if sufficient thinking profitable?

If I see no evidence for something it is rational for me to assert that I have no belief in something until I do see evidence. Atheism is not the assertion god does not exist, but merely the lack of a belief that a god does exist. Since you appear to not know whether god exists or not, you are actually an agnostic atheist.

And also no evidence against.

There is no evidence against bigfoot either yet I have no problems stating I don't believe in it either.

There is no evidence against any God be it Jehovah, Allah, or Brahman but it is unlikely for obvious reasons.

The evidence against them is their contradictory characteristics.

However, if you do not assert that God does not exist and are open to the possibility of his existence then what I was saying does not apply to you because you are really admitting that you do not know. I read the definition of atheist before I asked the question and it said an atheist was someone who denies the existence of God. So my question really geared more toward that kind of atheist.

Your definition of atheist is really the definition of 'strong atheist.' An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god.

If someone asked about my beliefs in the same way I wouldn't get mad or insulting at all. I'd just show them where they were wrong.

It is human nature to be upset when someone refers to your beliefs as ignorant. It makes you sound arrogant and condescending, not inquisitive.

The premise I set up in the question for the choice of atheist to deny the existence of God, again not you from what I've read, is inherently ignorant and I tell you why. I'm not insulting anyone it is just true. If the premise I set up is wrong than thats a different story. Thats why I explained my premise so thoroughly in the first place. So people can see where I'm coming from and tell me where my premise went wrong.

Your explanation was anything but thorough and your premise was wrong. Hopefully I have enlightened you as to what a person means when they say they are an atheist.

Smugness and superiority is just your imagination.

No, it is in your wording whether you intended it or not.

[Autechre]

Hi Alastor - allow me to welcome you to the forum. Seems that you have ruffled a few of the bigger birds feathers, as well as causing offense (which I find deliciously ironic, given the amount of criticism religious folk get for being similarly offended). Relating to why Atheists choose NOT to believe in god, I think that each person would have varying reasons. Possibly that for a creator to exist then that entity would also be subject to design is the most prominent argument. I think it is obvious the the sexist, greedy, easily offended gods that monotheistic religions pimp out can be ruled out by ANYBODY of reasonable intelect. I would be interested to hear about what religious background you/your parents have. Anyways welcome !