Why Atheism?

[Jangoo]

I recently read a survey...

apparently in one age group all are atheists... yup, we are born atheist, the rest learnt, for without followers no gods exists.  Simples.

If he does exist however, he exists nevertheless and is probably laughing at you (or crying about you).

Of course religion and worshipping are cultural techniques that have to be learned ... like anything else:
If our parents never taught us how to walk, would walking "not exist"? 

Just imagine how many things are still in the hidden (or lost to us) just because the cultures we live in don't teach us how to discover them ...

PS.  Jangoo, pardon me for making an assumption, but from what I can work out, it would appear were never an atheist, but rather anti-religious, and now you have found a happy medium... although it does seem you do believe in a spirtual presence, rather than not believeing whilst hedging your bets.

However, I am quite sure every atheist known, would quite happily change their opinions were a breakthrough or revelatory source of eveidence into the existance of a spiritual deity were to be uncovered.

Your assumption is ... erm ... weird.

Those atheists you are talking about sadly miss the point that this spiritual entity will probably not "be revealed" to them some day. While many believers claim that "god" reveals himself to anyone all the time, I would claim that an effort to learn the respective techniques to make contact has to actually be made by the human.


Edit:

So if I get this right you're also acknowledging that the toothy fairy may exist, as well as that the Earth may not (since you can't prove that what you're experiencing is real).

Well... it's a valid view of the world, but one that I personally find somewhat too unpragmatic.

Even though I am not an agnostic (and was merely suggesting that stance to some) that pretty much hits the spot. However I am too pragmatic to actually consider stuff like this all the time. I have things to do you know. 

[Artois]

PS.  Jangoo, pardon me for making an assumption, but from what I can work out, it would appear were never an atheist, but rather anti-religious, and now you have found a happy medium... although it does seem you do believe in a spirtual presence, rather than not believeing whilst hedging your bets.

However, I am quite sure every atheist known, would quite happily change their opinions were a breakthrough or revelatory source of eveidence into the existance of a spiritual deity were to be uncovered.

Your assumption is ... erm ... weird.

Those atheists you are talking about sadly miss the point that this spiritual entity will probably not "be revealed" to them some day. While many believers claim that "god" reveals himself to anyone all the time, I would claim that an effort to learn the respective techniques to make contact has to actually be made by the human.

He wont be revealed?  Why would he hide?  Isn't that strange.

I have tried contacting him to no avail.  However, I am not alone, as I believe it's commonly reported that over 99% of prayers go unanswered, and the remaining ones can be accounted for by coincidence.

Further, Jangoo... I must confess that it seems rather fruitless to try to contact something that has the likelyhood of exisiting in the same region as the tooth fairy, sure it's possible, but extremely, to the Nth degree, unlikely.

[icecoldbro]

 i am a born jew and a selfproclaimed atheist u think going to church on sunday is hard i go to a jewish school where we have to pray every day

[Artois]

i am a born jew and a selfproclaimed atheist u think going to church on sunday is hard i go to a jewish school where we have to pray every day

What?  They teach you to pray every day and it still hasnt sunk in how worthy he is?!   

[airframe]

The whole idea behind agnosticism is that there IS a reason to possibly believe in a god, a reason that currently cannot be conjoined with any type of proof/reasoning, be it scientific or else. Agnostics don't just sit there and wait for "science" to prove something ... "proof" itself is contradictory to the agnostic stance since it refers to human rationality which is, for an agnostic, not the right approach towards the issue: God cannot be truly recognized by the human ratio, a part of which is especially speech so above all god cannot be expressed or proven to anyone.

So if I get this right you're also acknowledging that the toothy fairy may exist, as well as that the Earth may not (since you can't prove that what you're experiencing is real).

Well... it's a valid view of the world, but one that I personally find somewhat too unpragmatic.

Jangoo, I'm still wondering why you're saying that agnosticism would be rational and atheism not. It would also appear that you're not talking about same agnosticism that Artois described.

I hope you realise when you were talking about the temples and scriptures of atheism, those are part of every lifestyle ( including yours ). Atheist just exlude churches and religions. Even religion is only a part of someones lifestyle.

I'll probably write a longer post when I find time. Although, I'm wondering should I write shorter so it would be harder to ignore parts and pick out just the stuff you like. 

[Artois]

Very well put Airframe.  I do feel that there is an underlying incosistancy with Jangoo's statements, and you put it well.

[Chemist]

I also don't agree with that view of agnosticism. An agnostic doesn't acknowledge that it is objectively possibile for any religion to be true, but rather doesn't know (as per the meaning of the word) whether to acknowledge any of them. It's like they have an atheist friend and a religious friend, both of which sound convincing to them. So they adopt the "I don't know what's true" (agnostic) stance.

Atheists can acknowledge the possibility of anything being true (since nothing can be proven beyond doubt), but they don't believe that's actually the case with any religion.

Things that could be true include the tooth fairy and alien abductions. But a true skeptic won't believe in either without evidence.

We don't need conclusive evidence; we need convincing evidence. If there was any such evidence for either the tooth fairy, alien abductions, or any given god then I'd be inclined to believe that their existence isn't that unlikely, and if there was a lot of evidence I'd believe they are actually very likely. Alas there is zero convincing evidence (I'm not convinced by a bunch of people who claim they were abducted), so I don't believe any of the aforementioned things are real.

I daresay many religious people (as well as UFO believers) think the same way, only that they have been convinced by some things ("evidence" for that religion or for UFOs) that more scientifically minded people wouldn't be.

[Artois]

Exactly Chemist.

I cannot be convinced by circumstantial evidence or hearsay, however the likelihood of a truth hidden in there.

I have never been in space and seen that the world is in fact round, however, I am convinced it is so, without first hand experience, due to the overwhelming and convincing eveidence towards that fact.

I have not seen, read or studied any evidence what-so-ever that could remotely point to the existance of a divine being... in fact upon studying the evidence, in particular the well documented falsehoods and contradictions in the biblical text, not to mention the alterations made throughout time to adjust those texts to fit an agenda, it seems highly implausible that they contain anything more than the smallest grain of any truth.

The original Commandments for example, in hebrew do not say "thou shall not commit a murder" but rather "thou shall not commit a murder upon a Jew"... but this was changed to fit a world view.  If the original texts can be changed, and have been, who would believe them?

[Wardead]

No one should compel someone to religion. It is an act of violating the right of freedom.

When I was in Singapore, we had to sing and pray to Jesus. Good thing I left after a year.

[Jangoo]

Allright, it is getting a little painstaking to actually reply in detail, so sorry if I miss out on any specific details.

Different types of agnosticism and rationality:

Yes, the range is pretty wide. From "humans aren't (ever) able to know if there is a god" to "there is no convincing evidence for god (yet)". Artois seemed to be talking about the latter while I was leaning more towards the further.
These stances are rational because they acknowledge the limits of human perception and achievement as well as the concept of god as something that (if even existant) is indeed different than anything else already known to man. What is more rational than recognizing ones limits and admitting for once that one simply doesn't know?
Contrary to that, an atheist does indeed make a leap of faith by saying "No, there isn't a god." He really cannot possibly know that for sure and yet here he is making that claim based on no evidence whatsoever. That is irrational.
I would think a true atheist could by definition certainly not acknowledge a god ever. If he were consequential he wouldn't even admit gods existence after god smacked him in the face personally ... that would probably just be a "psychosomatic shift" or something.


The atheist lifestyle and faith:

I am aware that the elements I pointed out are a part of lots of peoples lifestyles. My point was however that first, this "lot" of people is actually a small minority living in industrialized countries. Far away from that cosy computer-place in our nicely furnished livingroom the world and the people that live within it look, think and live a whole lot different. Education, politics, individualism etc. have no or just a very small place indeed for the vast majority of the worlds population.
My underlying thesis is second, that humans do not live without a strong belief (faith) in something that provides meaning, values and institutions. I simply don't believe that atheists live along "just like that" without giving their lives a "higher" meaning. If this meaning is no further provided by a higher power, then where is it? ...


The face of "god" and how to be "convinced" of his existence:

It sort of puzzles me that this talk indeed revolves arond concepts of god that equal the toothfairy or alien abductions, that god is apparently actually portrayed as some old guy with a white beard that has never knocked on your door and introduced himself ... Of course "god" will never be "proven" if you expect him to be like this.
Taking the concept of divine beings a bit more serious has to result in the assumption that "god", if he exists, is in fact amorph or of a quality beyond those known to us:
Multi-sited, much more than a singular entity, within yourself, around you, with physical shape and without, bound by time and yet not, an energy and it's drain ... you get the picture. I am saying that a truly divine being has to be so different to us and our modes of perception that it seems a little bloated to actually think one might recognize it for sure with our 5 senses, find it in a book, have it proven by science or whatever.
So, just to get away from that SantaClause-style god here for a moment, what do you guys think about far eastern spiritual practices and the underlying concepts?
 

[CB!]

What? Contradicting much? How can someone be perfect yet created from sin? Regardless of the things that happened next, you said right there, Lucifer was perfect. Then he became not perfect. Perfect things aren't supposed to be able to be corrupted, hence why they are perfect.

Just because something is perfect, doesn't mean it cannot fall from perfection.  Perfection (in God's eyes) is the absence of sin.  The temptation for Lucifer to be like God was not the sin, and had he resisted the temptation he would still be perfect.  Same thing with Adam and Eve, according to the Bible.  They were perfect until they gave in to temptation and sinned.

Is God perfect?  the Egyptians, Caananites, and all the poor innocent babies drowned in the flood might think he is a bit harsh & maybe just a tiny bit unfair, don't you think?

Perfect and fair can be two entirely different things.  If I want to keep my lawn perfect (green, no weeds, ants, etc.) then I put down weed and bug killer right?  My lawn is now perfect, green and healthy.  But all those poor innocent bugs and weeds had to die.  Was it fair to kill the weeds?  Maybe, maybe not.  That's for me to decide, because it's my lawn.

The Bible says in Noah's time, that he was the only righteous man left on earth.  God sent the flood and saved Noah so righteousness would continue.  Was it fair that so many people had to die?  Maybe, maybe not.  That's for God to decide because it's His world.

Sorry for the semi-necro post...

[Chemist]

The face of "god" and how to be "convinced" of his existence:

It sort of puzzles me that this talk indeed revolves arond concepts of god that equal the toothfairy or alien abductions, that god is apparently actually portrayed as some old guy with a white beard that has never knocked on your door and introduced himself ... Of course "god" will never be "proven" if you expect him to be like this.
Taking the concept of divine beings a bit more serious has to result in the assumption that "god", if he exists, is in fact amorph or of a quality beyond those known to us:
Multi-sited, much more than a singular entity, within yourself, around you, with physical shape and without, bound by time and yet not, an energy and it's drain ... you get the picture. I am saying that a truly divine being has to be so different to us and our modes of perception that it seems a little bloated to actually think one might recognize it for sure with our 5 senses, find it in a book, have it proven by science or whatever.
So, just to get away from that SantaClause-style god here for a moment, what do you guys think about far eastern spiritual practices and the underlying concepts?

All the same. If there's no evidence for it, then it makes no more sense to believe in it than to believe in anything else that has no evidence to support it (invisible pink unicorns, amorphous gods -you name it).

Sure the tooth fairy and reincarnation are both possible, but my point is that I'm not going to believe in reincarnation any more than I do in the tooth fairy, since I have the same amount of reason (evidence) to believe in either.

Supposedly some gods have revealed themselves in the past and proven their existence (else there'd be no record of them)? Didn't the people in the Bible only believe Jesus after they were shown evidence (miracles)? Well there's no reliable record of that left (anyone can write a book), so we'd appreciate it if they could show us a pillar of fire or something like that again just so we knew they're not actually a fairytale. Otherwise it's just the Jehovah witness' story all over again. (What kind of just being would send people to hell for all eternity if they didn't believe in fairytales... OR if they did but believed the wrong one?)