Should I Become An Atheist?

[The Devil Inside]

it is interesting to note that non-religious folks are stereotyped on this board as fundamentalist, and too preachy.......almost all the "preaching" i recieved has come from atheists....
perhaps buying a mirror is in order for some of you.

 

[Anomalous]

.....

Will U pullup your pants, Beach.

 

[KennyJC]

it is interesting to note that non-religious folks are stereotyped on this board as fundamentalist, and too preachy.......almost all the "preaching" i recieved has come from atheists....
perhaps buying a mirror is in order for some of you.

Well it is a problem you will have to get used to if you don't like people telling you your religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Sarkus]

If i had a faith that was false. I would want to be guided to the true faith.

How can you have a "true" faith?
Surely all faith is based on a lack of evidence - that is why it is faith.

So how can one unproven claim be any more or less true than any other unproven claim???


In response to the initial question - you don't decide to become atheist - you either are or you aren't. You either follow reason and logic - or you cling to unproven, unevidenced claims.
One day you'll suddenly realise that the things you have "faith" in are utterly without substance. At that point you will be atheist, and logic and reason will have finally won over superstition, heresay, myth and fantasy.

If you need the religion for the "self-help" side of it, but are struggling with the tenets of the faith, try and find some alternative "self-help" method that doesn't have those tenets.
And try and rise above the fear of peer pressure.
Openly admitting to being atheist in this highly religious world is not easy.
But it is logical and rational.

 

[Mythbuster]

[A] is a logical theory with evidence to back it up.
is a notion based on superstition and personal religious faith.
[C] through [Z] are as yet unknown.
Assuming [A] is found to be either false of incomplete, nothing suggests is valid by default.

 

[Lerxst]

I am a former atheist, and am now an agnostic. It was a very liberating change to make. My advice is to keep searching - is there an overwhelming reason to have to pigeonhole yourself at this point?

 

[The Devil Inside]

Well it is a problem you will have to get used to if you don't like people telling you your religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

every single thing i personally believe in stands up to the highest standard of scrutiny.

what i meant was: forum rules against preaching seem to be only aimed at religious folks. double standard.

atheists have no proof that they are correct, either....someone posted that DISproving something comes as a result of trying to prove it.
i see none of that going on.
it is a case of blindly accepting what scientists with bias have to say, going on on this board.

 

[Lerxst]

atheists have no proof that they are correct, either....

Agreed. I think that what atheism does offer is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation. Occam's Razor is indeed a great tool, and should certainly be considered, but it is NOT an arbiter of Truth. Sometimes the simplest explanation is wrong. Moreover it is not clear to me at all that Occam's Razor is applicable to all metaphysical questions.

There is a huge difference between "The simplest explanation is that there is no god, so I will live me life as if there is not one" and "I KNOW with absolute certainty that there is no god."

 

[Mythbuster]

atheists have no proof that they are correct, either...

If you can prove me wrong on this argument:

P1 If the theory of gravity were in fact true we would all have condensed into an infinitely small singularity
P2 We have not condensed into an infinitely small singularity
C God does not exist

 

[Silas]

most of the time, when conversing on this forum, i tend to side with atheists over religious views.
i am however, jewish.
should i become an atheist, or not?
please include reasons to your answer.

You're a Jew who has a great deal of respect for Jesus Christ. Are you a "Jew for Jesus"? Apparently not.

You have relatives who are Catholic. Are you a Catholic Christian? Apparently not.

IIRC you once mentioned something about being raised a "Southern Baptist". Are you an evangelical Protestant Christian then? Apparently not.

The Devil Inside, it's pretty damn hard getting to grips with exactly who you are!

But the short answer to your question (speaking as an atheist) would be, no. You "tend to agree" with the atheists here, because the default position on most elements of religious doctrine taken by atheists is, in fact, broadly agreed with by moderate believers in all the major religions! The vast majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims have no difficulty whatsoever reconciling their belief in God with a belief in Evolution (let's say) and think of Genesis 1 as only a folk myth. They can see that clinging to the writings or statements of people who were educated to a previous, lower, level of human knowledge, is intrinsically irrational. At the same time, even an atheist like myself can appreciate the Wisdom of the ancients, as well as the beauty of some of the writing itself, or of the depth of thought which produced items like the Book of Job, for instance.

There isn't anything in the Bible to compel one to a religious view. There isn't anything in the rejection of parts, or even the whole, of the Bible that compels one to a completely non-religious view. You have to go with what you yourself believe.

Jesus said, "Love your neighbour as yourself." That is a great philosophy whatever you believe.

 

[Sarkus]

atheists have no proof that they are correct, either....someone posted that DISproving something comes as a result of trying to prove it.
i see none of that going on.
it is a case of blindly accepting what scientists with bias have to say, going on on this board.

You miss the point entirely, I'm afraid.

Atheists do not, on the whole, say: "There is no God".
There are some atheists who go this far - and yes, their view is as lacking of evidence as those who say there is a God.

Most atheists DO agree that there is no evidence for God - and therefore why have belief in something's existence for which there is absolutely no evidence.

It is illogical / irrational to claim anything as true with no evidence to support that claim.

Most atheists thus don't claim anything regarding the existence of God - unless there is evidence to support it. And most of the time spent on this board is not spent showing how God can not exist but spent refuting so-called evidence that God does exist.

Yes, God may exist - God is a perfectly logical explanation for all things - and also an explanation that is logically consistent with something that doesn't exist - and as useful.
But there is no evidence of God's existence.
There is no evidence for an infinite number of other things.
So why should I "believe" in just one of them?
And more importantly - why should I believe that ANY of them exist?



And do not confuse scientists with bias with the science they are doing.
A scientist may be biased in the reasons for his science - but the scientific method is above bias.

 

[KennyJC]

every single thing i personally believe in stands up to the highest standard of scrutiny.

I'm assuming you follow the Bible or have a personal God, or follow a God created by organised religion. If so, then how does this stand up to scrutiny?

what i meant was: forum rules against preaching seem to be only aimed at religious folks. double standard.

Ah I see what you're doing. The old trick of using words normally associated with religious zealots such as Fundies and Preaching, and applied them to the non-believer.

atheists have no proof that they are correct, either....someone posted that DISproving something comes as a result of trying to prove it.
i see none of that going on.
it is a case of blindly accepting what scientists with bias have to say, going on on this board.

Atheists have an abundance of proof that most/all of organised religion are false. But if you are talking about the existence of what we humans would call "an intelligent creator", then you are right, there is no proof such a thing doesn't exist.

 

[Silas]

every single thing i personally believe in stands up to the highest standard of scrutiny.

what i meant was: forum rules against preaching seem to be only aimed at religious folks. double standard.

atheists have no proof that they are correct, either....someone posted that DISproving something comes as a result of trying to prove it.
i see none of that going on.
it is a case of blindly accepting what scientists with bias have to say, going on on this board.

You'd have to show evidence of bias, really - this is "sciforums", a declared "scientific forum", the vast majority of which is supposed to be dedicated to discussing scientific matters. The only "bias" you really could detect is a "bias" towards scientifically valid truth, and a bias against that which cannot be independently verified, or which is based on a poor understanding of empirical methods or mathematical rigour. Now, if that "bias" did not happen, science wouldn't work!

On religious matters, however, I quite agree. There is far too much bias and there has been far too much of a double-standard with regard to statements made by declared atheists here which have no more backing than the loaded questions or outright preaching of theists. I believe that atheism best suits my leaning towards rationality and logic, which is why I call myself an atheist. So it's disappointing to me that threads like this go unchallenged by the people who are supposed to be the unbiased ones. (I did write an extensive post on that subject on that thread but it got lost because of a power cut - maybe God is sabotaging my efforts to show balance - or is it the Devil?)

 

[Facial]

most of the time, when conversing on this forum, i tend to side with atheists over religious views.
i am however, jewish.
should i become an atheist, or not?
please include reasons to your answer.

I replied 'no' because it is good to maintain a religious identity for the sake of intellectual discourse. However, I am glad that you see the scientific aspects of things. It is possible to maintain your religious identity and side with atheist views, where you can dismiss any signs of fanatacism towards any one religion including yours.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm a Jew for Jesus, and a gnostic atheist. An atheist in the sense that the common conception of God is infantile, a theist in the Taoist sense that the interconnected complexity of the planet seems to have a self organizing principle.

 

[Lerxst]

Most atheists DO agree that there is no evidence for God - and therefore why have belief in something's existence for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Why? Because it might offer a significantly improved quality of life. And even with the paucity of evidence for God, there are plausibility arguments.

It is illogical / irrational to claim anything as true with no evidence to support that claim.

But it is entirely warranted to say that there are things that might be true although we have no evidence to support them. A 16th century scientist would have had no reason to suppose that x-rays existed, although they most certainly did and do. If said scientist announced, with no evidence at all, that X-rays existed (supose he somehow dreamed up the concept), how would you have treated his claim? Technically he would have been correct, but in another sense, he would have been making an unwarranted claim that everyone else at the time would have rightly rejected. I think it is important in realms where we don't have evidence to suspend judgement. Or as Sagan was fond of saying, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

[SkinWalker]

Or as Sagan was fond of saying, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

He was more fond of saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'd say that the core claims of judeo-chrisitan and islamic cults are extraordinary to say the least.

 

[The Devil Inside]

If you can prove me wrong on this argument:

P1 If the theory of gravity were in fact true we would all have condensed into an infinitely small singularity
P2 We have not condensed into an infinitely small singularity
C God does not exist

be a bit clearer, please.

 

[Lerxst]

He was more fond of saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'd say that the core claims of judeo-chrisitan and islamic cults are extraordinary to say the least.

Absolutely. Which is the key reason why I reject those particular worldviews.

 

[The Devil Inside]

You're a Jew who has a great deal of respect for Jesus Christ. Are you a "Jew for Jesus"? Apparently not.

You have relatives who are Catholic. Are you a Catholic Christian? Apparently not.

IIRC you once mentioned something about being raised a "Southern Baptist". Are you an evangelical Protestant Christian then? Apparently not.

The Devil Inside, it's pretty damn hard getting to grips with exactly who you are!

unlike some other religious folks, my faith is not WHO i am, but merely an aspect of myself.
to answer conclusively.....i am a VERY unorthodox noahide jew.

But the short answer to your question (speaking as an atheist) would be, no. You "tend to agree" with the atheists here, because the default position on most elements of religious doctrine taken by atheists is, in fact, broadly agreed with by moderate believers in all the major religions! The vast majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims have no difficulty whatsoever reconciling their belief in God with a belief in Evolution (let's say) and think of Genesis 1 as only a folk myth. They can see that clinging to the writings or statements of people who were educated to a previous, lower, level of human knowledge, is intrinsically irrational. At the same time, even an atheist like myself can appreciate the Wisdom of the ancients, as well as the beauty of some of the writing itself, or of the depth of thought which produced items like the Book of Job, for instance.

There isn't anything in the Bible to compel one to a religious view. There isn't anything in the rejection of parts, or even the whole, of the Bible that compels one to a completely non-religious view. You have to go with what you yourself believe.

Jesus said, "Love your neighbour as yourself." That is a great philosophy whatever you believe.

i agree about the bible not having anything that is coercive in it to the ends of converting "nonbelievers".
about jesus....i think jesus was a great guy, and had alot to teach humanity. unfortunately, the man has been deified in the minds of BILLIONS throughout history. jesus would have kicked paul's ass, if he had a chance, i bet...for his part in the perversion of jesus' teachings.