Why Atheism?

[Bloodshadow]

Fine, if you really want to know...

Right now I'm depressed. I have a very cynical outlook on my personal life, on the global world, and on the nature of reality itself. I'm repulsed by any and all forms of faith because I think they're naive. I'm too cynical to have faith in something if I'm not logically convinced that it's actually true.

If you're offended, don't say I didn't warn you.

[BluePriest]

Not offended at all. Anyone asking for honesty, shouldnt get offended. I appreciate your honesty.

[QuantumT]

Sorry for double posting, but the last post didn't load properly and I couldn't see what I was typing.

I was wondering, for those of you who are athiests, why do you not believe in God. I'm not convinced by simply: "I see no evidence of him", because I see no evidence against him or for atheism. So, please give me an argument against God besides that because that is known as an "appeal to ignorance" and is an informal logical fallacy.

This hasnt been answered. Frankly because of the respect I have for Quantum and Especially BS, I have to say that Im quite dissapointed that you never answered it, and instead avoided it with burden of proof responses, especially when he never was making a claim of God existing in that statement. 

If a random person walked up to you and asked those questions would you say "you have to prove God, I dont have to prove anything"? 

BS you did at least respond eventually to it, however, Im with polka. With the attitude you have towards it, it seems lack of evidence isnt the sole reason for your disbelief

For the most part, I just don't like it because I'm a particularly rational person. The reason that a burden of proof argument is sufficient is because atheism is the default position. If there's no reason to suppose something to exist, then why suppose that it does?

If a random person asked me, then that would indeed be part at least part of my response. Why would I respond to them any differently?

I also don't like that it encourages inaction. With religion, when a problem comes up, instead of being proactive and trying to solve it, I pray for god to fix it for me.

Additionally, as someone who like trying to figure out how the universe works, I don't like that religion discourages questioning how it works. When a question like "How did people come to be on earth", religion demands that we just say "god did it" and leave it at that.

Those are just some of my personal issues with it.

[Bloodshadow]

Three reasons why I reject the Christian God:

1. Burden of proof.

2. I do not like faith.

3. Christianity seems illogical to me (basically what QuantumT said).

[Kael Hate]

2. I do not like faith.

Lol, how do you believe what you see is real or what you feel is real or even what you think relates to reality?

[Bloodshadow]

I said I do not like faith. I would prefer to have pure logic if given the choice. However, I do not have that choice, so instead I prefer things with as little faith and as much logic as possible. Science is mostly logic and some faith, while religion is only faith. Thus, I prefer science.

Just saying, I've seen that reality argument many times before. I'm getting tired of responding to it all the time.

[Kael Hate]

I said I do not like faith. I would prefer to have pure logic if given the choice. However, I do not have that choice, so instead I prefer things with as little faith and as much logic as possible. Science is mostly logic and some faith, while religion is only faith. Thus, I prefer science.

Just saying, I've seen that reality argument many times before. I'm getting tired of responding to it all the time.

Its faith that allows you to believe perceptions of reality and thus develop a science. You cannot proove anything but you can have faith in perceptions. A person cannot know the contents of an atom or how big space is, but from perceptions can make assumptions. Now the difference between Faith in God and not is related to the question of unknowing. If as a scientist and not a believer of god when you cannot percieve something you assume it to be something defined by something undefined. If as a believer of god when you cannot percieve something you assume it to be something defined by God.

[Kuu]

I would prefer to have pure logic if given the choice.

Hmmm, but logic is in the buisness of breaking minds. As G.K. Chesterton said in Orthodoxy:

"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."

You are, of course, welcome to prefer what you like, but there is (or there should be) more to life than logic.

I also don't like that it encourages inaction. With religion, when a problem comes up, instead of being proactive and trying to solve it, I pray for god to fix it for me.

False. And I can say that as a Christian and someone who knows many Christians. I pray for God to give me strength, guidance, etc. and then I try and fix it if I can.

Additionally, as someone who like trying to figure out how the universe works, I don't like that religion discourages questioning how it works. When a question like "How did people come to be on earth", religion demands that we just say "god did it" and leave it at that.

Yes, I definitely can understand your lack of satisfaction with the simplicity of "God did it". Some facts are simple though, and if it is simply true than it is simply true no matter how much we like it. However, the Christian view on how people got here is a little more complex than just "God did it". You could read Genesis if you'd like but according to Genesis (if I recall correctly) God made Adam out of dust of some sort (ever heard the theory that our bodies are composed of stardust?) and breathed the breath of life into him. Eve came when God took a rib from Adam and formed it into woman (and of course, breathed the breath of life into her).

That is the short version of the story (and probably one of those things Bloodshadow calls ridiculous).


Oh yeah, forgot one thing to address.

If a random person asked me, then that would indeed be part at least part of my response. Why would I respond to them any differently?

I think he meant if someone came to you and said: "Hey Quantum, why are you an atheist?" (as I did) then would you say: "What do you mean?!" "It's your job to prove God since you claim he exists!" (as you and Bloodshadow basically did).

Also, I'm not at the moment arguing for religion, just trying to explain the Christian view on things, and I'm also not trying to explain away your problems with religion as invalid.

[Daxx]

Sorry for double posting, but the last post didn't load properly and I couldn't see what I was typing.

I was wondering, for those of you who are athiests, why do you not believe in God. I'm not convinced by simply: "I see no evidence of him", because I see no evidence against him or for atheism. So, please give me an argument against God besides that because that is known as an "appeal to ignorance" and is an informal logical fallacy.

This hasnt been answered. Frankly because of the respect I have for Quantum and Especially BS, I have to say that Im quite dissapointed that you never answered it, and instead avoided it with burden of proof responses, especially when he never was making a claim of God existing in that statement.

I suspect the reason that most people didn't give any further answer to this is because they didn't need to. The sufficient response to "why do you not believe in God" is "I don't see any evidence for it", which is the same answer you'd give to anything you didn't believe in, from Santa Claus to Fairies to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The burden of proof response is logically sufficient - anything else would either be trying to prove a negative (which is logically unsound) or an appeal to the body of scientific evidence which explains the world without the need for a God (which does not consititute a proof).

For further reading, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

[Kuu]

Sorry for double posting, but the last post didn't load properly and I couldn't see what I was typing.

I was wondering, for those of you who are athiests, why do you not believe in God. I'm not convinced by simply: "I see no evidence of him", because I see no evidence against him or for atheism. So, please give me an argument against God besides that because that is known as an "appeal to ignorance" and is an informal logical fallacy.

This hasnt been answered. Frankly because of the respect I have for Quantum and Especially BS, I have to say that Im quite dissapointed that you never answered it, and instead avoided it with burden of proof responses, especially when he never was making a claim of God existing in that statement.

I suspect the reason that most people didn't give any further answer to this is because they didn't need to. The sufficient response to "why do you not believe in God" is "I don't see any evidence for it", which is the same answer you'd give to anything you didn't believe in, from Santa Claus to Fairies to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The burden of proof response is logically sufficient - anything else would either be trying to prove a negative (which is logically unsound) or an appeal to the body of scientific evidence which explains the world without the need for a God (which does not consititute a proof).

For further reading, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Understood. But it still doesn't explain why when I asked them why they were atheists they told me that since I was claiming God exists (which at the time I wasn't) I had to prove he exists.

[Daxx]

Understood. But it still doesn't explain why when I asked them why they were atheists they told me that since I was claiming God exists (which at the time I wasn't) I had to prove he exists.

I suspect it's because they thought it was implicit in your question.

[Bloodshadow]

Its faith that allows you to believe perceptions of reality and thus develop a science. You cannot proove anything but you can have faith in perceptions. A person cannot know the contents of an atom or how big space is, but from perceptions can make assumptions. Now the difference between Faith in God and not is related to the question of unknowing. If as a scientist and not a believer of god when you cannot percieve something you assume it to be something defined by something undefined. If as a believer of god when you cannot percieve something you assume it to be something defined by God.

Regardless, I prefer logic. I only have faith in science because I must; if I don't, I probably would have went insane and committed suicide. The point is, in my personal opinion religions are not logical enough for my tastes, which is why I don't believe in them.

I don't want to argue about this any longer. I try to give simple reasons for why I like and dislike certain things, but you can't blame me if you find holes in these reasons.

Understood. But it still doesn't explain why when I asked them why they were atheists they told me that since I was claiming God exists (which at the time I wasn't) I had to prove he exists.

You seemed to be asking us to prove that God doesn't exist, since you say the absence of proof isn't good enough. Which is why we said the burden of proof is on you, not us.