Why Atheism.

[D-rock]

What I'm often perplexed about is why anybody would choose atheism over agnosticism if they don‘t belive in God or a higher power and believe what they say they do. People that are religious are understandable in what they belive. People that don't know what to believe due to lack of emperical scientific proof either way are understandable. Why somebody would have a religious like philosophy about the non-existance of something because of lack of easy emperical proof of that things existance when the nature of what God is makes ever having proof apart from God directly giving it to people impossible is much less sensible, and despite what a lot of athiest thing it isn't very logical.

Religious people believe in faith and for the most part don't pretend otherwise.

Agnostic people believe in what can be proven or experienced and base things off of that for the most part.

Atheist seem to have their own virtual faith yet try to hide it behind a vineer of science.

 

[lurkingdirk]

At least science is pursuing answers. Religion just believes and that's enough.

Actually, that's a load of bullshit. Lazy religion says just believe, and that has to be enough. Someone who is serious about faith never stops pursuing truth, and is methodical about that pursuit. Accepting a religion such as Christianity is, by no means, you shutting off your brain. Rather, it should push you harder to find the inherent truths in that which you believe.

:2 cents:

 

[andy42s]

There are different beliefs within the Christian religion, but the core of it really is as simple as this:

Jesus Christ died for our sins. If you choose to accept him as your savior, all of your sins will be forgiven.

The Lord is my friend. I don't go around thinking someone is judging me, and wondering if I'm going to hell for making this bad decision or that bad decision. God created us; he knows we aren't perfect. If I make a mistake, I will be forgiven, because I have accepted Jesus.

I was athiest for a long time, because the existence of a God was unproveable, but beyond that, it was completely unreasonable to me. Nothing in the bible was believeable; it seemed like a ridiculous story. However, looking back to those times, I felt incomplete as a human. I was angry and lacking all the time. Someone who I came to be related to was very religious. He came to be a role model to me, and I slowly started to warm up to Christianity. He didn't convert me, he just was a very cool and likeable person. I wanted to be more like him. I started reading the bible and taking the stories to heart. Life seems to be more fullfilling to me as a believer. It's just comforting to me to be able to turn to someone when there is nobody else to ask for help. Every night I pray for friends or family members that are in need, but at the end of my prayers, I always ask God to bless everybody in the entire world. There are lots of bad people out there that need help. I pray for them. Whether God exists or not is for everyone to decide for themselves. I'm not trying to convert anybody. I used to be athiest, and to anyone who is...I understand. I don't blame you. All I am saying is that my life is better as a believer. I was actually well off as an athiest, financially. I am all but completely broke now, but my life is better now than it was then.

 

[Shifty]

Religion is fable-based, simplistic pseudo-science, developed as a means of coping with man's visceral fear of the unknown.

Passed on through generations, religion remains incredibly powerful as it feeds upon ignorance, and need.

While true, verifiable scientific principles continue to emerge and gain widespread acceptance, religion continually falters - it's foundations based upon little more than biased narratives.

The truth - only that which can be proven - will always prevail.

 

[STDiva]

Actually, that's a load of bullshit. Lazy religion says just believe, and that has to be enough. Someone who is serious about faith never stops pursuing truth, and is methodical about that pursuit. Accepting a religion such as Christianity is, by no means, you shutting off your brain. Rather, it should push you harder to find the inherent truths in that which you believe.

:2 cents:

It should. But doesn't. We all know that most believers are the kind of people that do shut off their brain. And which inherent truths would people of faith be searching for?

 

[lurkingdirk]

It should. But doesn't. We all know that most believers are the kind of people that do shut off their brain. And which inherent truths would people of faith be searching for?

"It should, but doesn't" is an unfair argument. The same can be said for just as many Atheists as Christians. How many Atheists you know are out there, using science to prove their points? To prove the truth in that which they believe? They don't. They use the words of scientists, geologists, etc. etc.. The same is true of Christians. Most are content to swallow whatever the Pastor is dishing from the pulpit. They're not looking at original texts, learning languages that are centuries dead, spending time in profound reflection and study. It isn't feasible for everyone to do this.

There exists a wealth of rigorous theologians, historians, linguists, and the like, "experts in their field" so to speak, who are able to provide some pretty outstanding documentation on spiritual matters. Just as many experts as there are in science etc.. It takes a lifetime of reading, studying, thinking, processing, assimilating, and caring to gain a tiny bit of knowledge about either Christianity or Atheism. I'm not saying we're exactly comparing apples to apples, but they are very comparable, and saying that accepting either means shutting off your brain is just plain false. If you want to be a bad Christian, or a bad Atheist, then, yes. By all means. Spout back exactly what you're told. Don't seek to further your knowledge. Be a mindless zombie. But don't judge the entirety of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, or any other group by the mindless lemmings who accept a spoon-fed version of their "beliefs."

 

[zell]

What I'm often perplexed about is why anybody would choose atheism over agnosticism if they don‘t belive in God or a higher power and believe what they say they do. People that are religious are understandable in what they belive. People that don't know what to believe due to lack of emperical scientific proof either way are understandable. Why somebody would have a religious like philosophy about the non-existance of something because of lack of easy emperical proof of that things existance when the nature of what God is makes ever having proof apart from God directly giving it to people impossible is much less sensible, and despite what a lot of athiest thing it isn't very logical.

Religious people believe in faith and for the most part don't pretend otherwise.

Agnostic people believe in what can be proven or experienced and base things off of that for the most part.

Atheist seem to have their own virtual faith yet try to hide it behind a vineer of science.

With all due respect,even though I'm not an Atheist,but an Agnostic,I think that you are grossly mistaken about what Atheism truly is.

I think what you mistake as virtual faith that hides behind science is more of a perception that a lot of Atheists come across to others as arrogant (just like Christians) in what they believe to be the truth.The thing is though,is that scientifically,Atheists really have the upper hand when arguing logical matters that The Bible can't stand up to.

I guess I'm a bit of an oddball though,as I can understand how people would believe in something greater than ourselves,but for the life of me,I can't fathom how anyone with any intellect can believe in Christianity,Islam,or Hinduism.On the other hand,it equally baffles me that anyone can believe in absolute nothingness after death.Neither sides can satisfactorily answer the simplest questions that a three year old can come up with.If God created us,then who created God? If there is no God,then then how did everything come to be?

Fact is(in my opinion),the universe is the biggest contradiction ever,no matter what side you take.Sometimes it's best not to think of these things in hopes of preventing your brains from oozing out of your ears.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

God is dead long live the king.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

No, I'm not.

You an Odinist? The Scandinavians were Odinists long before Christ came on this planet.

 

[Red Spyder]

Look, guys, when the Great Spaghetti Monster comes to save us, you atheists will be proven wrong!!!

All Hail the GSM!!! :bowdown:

 

[lurkingdirk]

Look, guys, when the Great Spaghetti Monster comes to save us, you atheists will be proven wrong!!!

All Hail the GSM!!! :bowdown:

I didn't know you are a Pastifarian...

 

[D-rock]

With all due respect,even though I'm not an Atheist,but an Agnostic,I think that you are grossly mistaken about what Atheism truly is.

I think what you mistake as virtual faith that hides behind science is more of a perception that a lot of Atheists come across to others as arrogant (just like Christians) in what they believe to be the truth.The thing is though,is that scientifically,Atheists really have the upper hand when arguing logical matters that The Bible can't stand up to.

I guess I'm a bit of an oddball though,as I can understand how people would believe in something greater than ourselves,but for the life of me,I can't fathom how anyone with any intellect can believe in Christianity,Islam,or Hinduism.On the other hand,it equally baffles me that anyone can believe in absolute nothingness after death.Neither sides can satisfactorily answer the simplest questions that a three year old can come up with.If God created us,then who created God? If there is no God,then then how did everything come to be?

Fact is(in my opinion),the universe is the biggest contradiction ever,no matter what side you take.Sometimes it's best not to think of these things in hopes of preventing your brains from oozing out of your ears.

To have the upper hand they would have to have some proof that backs up their case, but when it gets down to it they don't. I see it more as a philosophy that's believed in than anything. Truth encompasses more than what people can know or prove and probably always will. That even goes for scientific things. While lack of evidence scientific evidence of it's existence might be a good basis to not believe in say, unicorns, which should have left logically left something around, and thus it’s absence is itself evidence, it's not a good basis to disbelieve something, the concept of God, that by it's nature can't be disproved.

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

pay close attention to what is said between 1:44 - 2:00

not science, not logic, not reason, just reductionist fundamentalism.
Every religious fundi quotes the reductionist atheists to argue against.
Every reductionist Atheist quotes the religious fundies to argue against.
both sides ignore all the alternative points of views because it conflicts with the narrow minded black and white either or argument.
I'm somewhere between Arthur Eddington's mysticism and Einstein's Spinoza/Pantheism - between my experiences and study my own personal conclusion is there is a lot more to this experience of life and its observation of the universe it takes place in, then either side of the linear minded debate, which only seems to be interested in gathering followers to their side then finding truth. The debaters talk about it - everyone else tries to live it.
To put it into an analogy best suited for a porno message board - It just comes down to an old fashioned dick contest - so while the Atheist reductionist scientists and fundamentalist Christians are showing off the size of their penises to one another - the spiritualists and agnostics are fucking their girlfriends.

 

[L3ggy]

You an Odinist? The Scandinavians were Odinists long before Christ came on this planet.

Indeed I am.

 

[BlueBalls]

I don't particularly like to engage in religious arguments any more, but I think some confusion needs to be cleared up:

What I'm often perplexed about is why anybody would choose atheism over agnosticism if they don‘t belive in God or a higher power and believe what they say they do.

Atheism/theism pertain to belief, or lack thereof.
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge.

Agnostic atheist/agnostic theist. We all agnostic baby...

 

[Deepcover]

Funny what emotional trauma does to critical thought, no? Fortunately, we have many scientific examples and explanations for things like that. Though really, you don't even need all that to explain deathbed conversions. There's a very simple explanation to that: fear.

Fear of what? Death. I'll explain death for you: when you die, that's it. There is no existence after. How could I possibly know that, you ask? The same way I know when I let go of a pencil, it'll fall toward the earth until stopped by something. Or how momentum and inertia works. Logic and experimentation. All credible knowledge points to our 'existence' being comprised simply as electrical wiring in a few pounds of gray matter. When that matter suffers trauma, the wiring gets fucked up and we lose part of our existence (Alzheimer's, amnesia, concussions, etc.). It logically follows, then, that when this wiring shuts off completely, that's it folks - done. Gone. Nadda. Not even something to notice yourself no longer existing. No darkness, heaven or hell.

Think of it this way: it's just like you were before you were born!

You don't know if that's particularly true buddy. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!

 

[freeryan]

Actually, that's a load of bullshit. Lazy religion says just believe, and that has to be enough. Someone who is serious about faith never stops pursuing truth, and is methodical about that pursuit. Accepting a religion such as Christianity is, by no means, you shutting off your brain. Rather, it should push you harder to find the inherent truths in that which you believe.

:2 cents:

No, someone who's serious about faith, never questions because faith is believing things for no reason other than wanting that something to be true. Christianity is completely false with regards to what we know about the earth and the universe so ofcourse it's not about looking for the truth when it makes the claims it assumes came from an all-knowing being. Personal interpretation can be used for any form of fiction but that doesn't change the fact that the fiction is still fiction.

 

[freeryan]

When you believe as you have said, and that these beliefs stand above all of the others, that is your religion.

No, that's philosophy and being true to yourself. Is believing equal rights stands above racism, a religion? If so, what's it's god and doctrine?

 

[DR. B]

"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines."

 

[Rattrap]

Fact is(in my opinion),the universe is the biggest contradiction ever,no matter what side you take.

This is very true and shows us the limitations of what we can imagine.

To have the upper hand they would have to have some proof that backs up their case, but when it gets down to it they don't.

I would say the natural, observable laws of science can be treated as evidence against things they show cannot be (the law of conservation of energy, for example).

[...]the concept of God, that by it's nature can't be disproved.

As I mentioned perhaps less than articulately on the last page, that which is not disprovable is logically irrelevant. To use that teapot example once again: if there is a teapot orbiting in space that cannot be detected by any means and cannot be affected by any means, it has no effects and it makes zero difference whether it exists or not for any purposes. It's irrelevant - and you can't disprove it!

You don't know if that's particularly true buddy. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!

No more or less than any other conclusions of the natural world I use in my day to day life (gravity, magnetism, planetary orbits, etc.). While it's true we're still learning a lot about the human mind and how it works, Occam's razor is a valuable tool in these areas of the unknown. Keep in mind with the recent Higgs Boson discovery, nobody knows what causes gravity even - but that doesn't leave a license to go sailing off to the divine.

I should perhaps state my position clearly in all this: I don't mind people believing in a god. I mind religion. Likely just a tool of control, the Abrahamic religions naturally have built-in mechanisms to widen their net of control (hence all that business in the texts about how you should convert a non-believer or kill them). It's in their nature to spread and seek control. They're dogmatic. This is not the same as, say, sharing the philosophy of Christ (being kind to your neighbor, helping the needy, etc). That's great.