Why are you Atheist? page 3

Damn, forgot the initial question. I was raised by a catholic father and an at that time protestant mother. they did not want to make me religious or anything, they just wanted to present christianity to me so that i could choose for myself later on. But there is another dimension to it: I was raised in the GDR, and the church created some of the otherwise scarce places without indoctrination. In the public kindergartens, you had to join the pioneers and got socialistic indoctrinating education. My parents were public rights activists in the peace movement, so that was not an option for their child, and i ended up in a protestant kindergarten. That way i only made religious friends during my early childhood, which later on created real problems for me when i became an atheist, because i didn’t know it was ok to be one. but i digress.

Later on, i went to a christian group parallel to my school education. I guess i was one of the very few kids to read the bible – and understand it enough to question it – at the age of 9, and that was when the mud dispense-o-bot was turned on between me and christianity. I guess i never truly believed in the first place, but when i started to ask questions, most other people flipped and basically said “you can’t ask this!” i thought, what kind of a weak position has to “defend” itself by just banning viable an important questions?

That was the time when i got to know a friend of my parents’ who is a priest. She was willing to talk things over with me, and the more i talked to her, the more i realized that faith in our modern society is little more than a tool to achieve self-consciousness, assure oneself of one’s own worth and create mental power, firmness and stability. I eventually found out that i have no problem in achieving all that without a sermon and without having to support values i do not like. Bye, christianity, and bye, religions, because of the reasons given in my earlier post.

Sorry for DP…

norumaru: What about secular religions? To bring up Quakerism for the umpteenth time, they have done a lot of awesome things. Even if God does not exist, I don’t think anyone can look back on Quakerism and say “Wow, that was a waste of time.” Because they done a lot of great things based on their faith in God that are absolutely wonderful regardless whether or not God exists.

What do the deeds of a group of people have to do with the probability for their religious claims to be true?

And yet, they’re still a religion. Every time someone says the word “Religion”, it encompasses them. But it is scarcely true. If you went back in the last paragraph and replaced “Religion” and “Christianity” with “Quakerism”, it would sound preposterous. But that’s essentially what you’re saying.

sorry… what? What am i saying essentially, if i say that quakerism attracts bandwagon people as well? i don’t understand what you’re telling me.

I haven’t read it cover to cover – why is this an issue?

because you (or somebody else) demanded a comparable self-education about a persons stance from all atheists. If you can be a christian without being able to quote the bible, why is it bad to be an atheist without knowing a lot about it?

Just noticed this…

I was raised in the GDR, and the church created some of the otherwise scarce places without indoctrination..

Wow, that makes you almost as old as me or maybe older?

What do the deeds of a group of people have to do with the probability for their religious claims to be true?

That’s not the point. The point is – does it matter? My other point is below.

sorry… what? What am i saying essentially, if i say that quakerism attracts bandwagon people as well? i don’t understand what you’re telling me.

Christianity and Religion are both very vague words and should be explicitly defined. When someone says “Christianity is dumb” or “I am a Christian”, these words mean about as much as saying “I am an American”. Okay, I live in America. What else can you say? Not much.

because you (or somebody else) demanded a comparable self-education about a persons stance from all atheists. If you can be a christian without being able to quote the bible, why is it bad to be an atheist without knowing a lot about it?

It’s only bad if an Atheist claims that Atheism is more logical than Christianity, but is not educated on either.

That’s not the point. The point is – does it matter? My other point is below.

Is it or is it not? You brought up that

Even if God does not exist, I don’t think anyone can look back on Quakerism and say “Wow, that was a waste of time.” Because they done a lot of great things based on their faith in God that are absolutely wonderful regardless whether or not God exists.

If I was to say Hitler was a good person, and be charitable, nice and intelligent all my life, that wouldn’t make my claim true at all. A group’s deeds have nothing to do with the viability of their religious belief.

Christianity and Religion are both very vague words and should be explicitly defined. When someone says “Christianity is dumb” or “I am a Christian”, these words mean about as much as saying “I am an American”. Okay, I live in America. What else can you say? Not much.

I didn’t say either, I rather gave statements about religions in general, knowing and wanting it to be general. Are you going to address my points or just saying that wasn’t specific?

I did not want to address christianity exclusively, that’s why i didn’t do it. I wanted to point out why “you can’t prove there is no god, so you should assume there is one” is a flawed argument.

It’s only bad if an Atheist claims that Atheism is more logical than Christianity, but is not educated on either.

Agreed. Read up on your stuff or do not debate.

I’m athiest for so many reasons its ridiculous. But even if I did believe in god I would never be part of any religion as they are all messed up.

It’s only bad if an Atheist claims that Atheism is more logical than Christianity, but is not educated on either.

Although to be fair, the lack of talking snakes logically leads me to believe that snakes never talked, rather then believing snakes talked to some prior point where they pissed off a big man with a beard.

Logical!

I have been trying to explain this for ever. Please pay attention:

Agnostic (Weak) Atheism is the wisest, most intelligent, logical belief.

God, as proposed by any of mankind’s books, is not a question, or a proposition that fulfills any requirements in the universe. God could very well exist, but only in a hypothetical, existential way. Whether or not we can talk about that is unquestionable: We should all be agnostic, Christians and Atheists alike. Gnostic, or those who claim we can know about God (that he’s small enough to know) are fools, Atheist or Christian alike.

I am an Agnostic Atheist: I do not claim to know of the existence of things that are not observable or measurable, but I’d argue it doesn’t exist, and that there’s no reason for it to exist.

Not that logic and wisdom are the most important things. Spirituality, hope, and faith may be a path to a better life and happiness and, who knows, some undetectable omnipresent afterlife? I don’t believe in that, but it’s possible, and because it’s possible, I can’t say religion is terrible and impossible, and wrong, I just don’t think it’s useful, or needed.

What TheBSG said, except for ‘I just don’t think it [religion] is useful’ because if religion means hope, balance, and a path to a better life for some people, it could be very useful.

I am an Agnostic Atheist: I do not claim to know of the existence of things that are not observable or measurable, but I’d argue it doesn’t exist, and that there’s no reason for it to exist.

Same here. The only problem is that people usually assume that you do believe in the existence of gods if you say “agnostic” and put you into some kind of “not religious, but spiritual” or other bullsh*t category.

I’m with Dawkins in this rather entertaining video: 6.9 atheist.

I’m an atheist because I do not find anyone’s religion or deity to be remotely probable or convincing.

I am atheist because I science and logic have consistently proven their theories through solid, factual evidence; whereas religion is based primarily on contradictory literature that was written who knows how many years ago by who knows who or what.

Plus, I don’t like how some thing that I’ve not seen, heard, felt, talked with, or touched will dictate what I can and cannot do. I am my own ruler, I am in my own image, I am myself. ;)

Yes but it was God who created you. So you should worship and praise God and thank him whenever good things happen to you; preferably on national television.

Instinct, I think. I’d like to say it’s because of science and logic and facts, which happen to support atheism sure, but it’s just a general disbelief, at the core of it. I didn’t consciously think “well the bible says this, which logic says can’t be true”. That comes afterwards. I wouldn’t call myself atheist, really, because that implies taking part in religion by denying it- spirituality is just a non-issue.

I think lots of people are like this, in the UK at least, despite what censuses say. I went to a Catholic college, surrounded by 99% atheists. But a lot of people think a family background in Christianity means they should put Christianity on census forms.

EDIT: Not that I think it’s a bad thing, in particular, for people to be non-believers who take part in religion. Sometimes it seems religion is just the worship of the community- you know, “praise god” as an allegory for “praise humanity”, maybe. Prayer in church being more about praying as part of a little community than a one-to-one with a deity. I don’t know :)

just like norumaru, i was born in east germany where atheism is rampant (more than 50% , contrary to like 5% in the u.s.). the rest are mainly very moderate lutherans and some catholics.

at first i had absolutely no grasp on why people could be religious or, even more enigmatic, decided to become religious later in life. i still think that humans are ‘natural atheists’ but i have accepted that certain experiences can bring forward either religiousness (upbringing, conformism or need for orientation, for example) or, in the more independent thinkers, spirituality (like philosophical musings or mystical experiences as described in ralph w. emerson’s nature , for example ) (or both). but most of it requires a ‘leap of faith’ and an abandonment of rational thought. that i can not do. at least not now but who knows what the future holds.

btw here is the famous paragraph of emerson’s essay (i believe he was a unitarian/deist):

In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life, — no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving me my eyes,) which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God.

Is it or is it not? You brought up that

I never claimed that, because these people did wonderful things, God exists. My point was that people criticize religion, while Quakers have done some wonderful things because of religion, and, unlike many other Christians, not by fear of Hell but by virtue of the action.

If I was to say Hitler was a good person, and be charitable, nice and intelligent all my life, that wouldn’t make my claim true at all. A group’s deeds have nothing to do with the viability of their religious belief.

Did I claim it did?

I didn’t say either, I rather gave statements about religions in general, knowing and wanting it to be general.

Those are both generalizations. You cannot generalize religion or Christianity as a group.

Case in point:

“A very strong hint in that direction was for me, that religion ultimately screws you
over no matter what.”

Also, you weren’t specific on the type of Christian church you attended.
bq. Are you going to address my points or just saying that wasn’t specific?

Your points are invalid because they are undefined. Also, I’m not trying to prove the existence or nonexistence of God, I’m trying to prove its irrelevance

Agreed. Read up on your stuff or do not debate.

Are you talking to me?

I’m atheist because rather than blaming some mysterious all knowing force for all of my problems or thanking it for all of my achievements in life i know that there is a logical reason for everything in the world.

someone gets a raise because they do good at there job, not because they pray to god.
and someone gets in a car accident because they (or someone else) were being reckless on the road, not because they angered god.someone wins on a lottery scratch card because they got one of the tons and tons of card because they decided to buy one at JUST the right moment, not for any other reason.

IMHO religion is something people believe in to give them hope, and i respect that fully. why mourn over the loss of a loved one when you can say their in a better place, and that it was “their time” according to god. i find no reason that one cant have faith in a god, and it wont affect my opinion of them either way.

maybe i would believe in god if there was cold hard proof, but until there is whos to say that the bible or any other religion isn’t just made up? think about it, way back when religion was first formed who’s to say that two guys low on money made the whole thing up just to give people false hope and make money off of them. church brings in tons of donations, so it definitely brings in a profit.

religion does many good things, like bring hope and bring people together, but it also does bad things like start wars, so i take no part in it.

My point was that people criticize religion, while Quakers have done some wonderful things because of religion, and, unlike many other Christians, not by fear of Hell but by virtue of the action.

whatever, that is in no way related to my statement that i have no reason to assume there is a god.

“A very strong hint in that direction was for me, that religion ultimately screws you
over no matter what.”

i’d greatly appreciate if you read more than one sentence at once. I explained what i meant by that sentence.

You cannot generalize religion or Christianity as a group.

i certainly can. what should keep me from doing it? there are definitions for the term “religion”, and every group to which this definition can be applied is a religion, and my points given earlier applied to all religions i know about, or more, to the very concept of religion as such.

Your points are invalid because they are undefined.

they are neither. religion is a concept that can be talked about generally. If I say “I’m talking about religion in general”, your demand for specification on a branch of it is useless. me: “rocks in general are hard.” you: “but some of them are red, and others gray!” that is the idea behind addressing a concept, that you don’t have to deal with all the details that don’t influence the point anyway.

Are you talking to me?

now you’re just f*cking with me. do you suffer from such severe ADD that you can not connect two sentences, one of them actually only one word, that stand in direct succession?

How can Christians, or indeed, any religion justify the BILLIONS of deaths caused by a conflict of beliefs IE. Crusades.
My mind is just too logical too believe in the supernatural.

How can Christians, or indeed, any religion justify the BILLIONS of deaths caused by a conflict of beliefs IE. Crusades.

I don’t know too many Christians in my area who were involved in the crusades.

I, as all people are, was born an atheist. I have never seen, heard or experienced anything that would lead me to believe otherwise. Quite the contrary, in my life, I have only ever experienced things that reinforce my atheism.

I, as all people are, was born an atheist.

Actually, I’d imagine most people are born agnostic.

Arent you born ignorant?

You are born not knowing whether God exists or not. That is agnosticism, my friend.

Actually, I’d imagine most people are born agnostic.

You are not born with any knowledge about God. You possibly cannot even conceive of a God (I’m not sure quite how developed a baby’s mind is after birth). You know nothing of any religion or any religious text. You don’t even know what a religion or a God is.

As a result, whether you like it or not, your lack of knowledge about God puts you firmly into the atheist category. To be agnostic, you actually have to know about God. It’s not that a baby has decided not to believe in God, just that it doesn’t know that a God can exist in the first place. People can be an atheist in many different ways.