Why and how did you become an atheist?

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

Atheists base their belief that there is no god on evidence...

Such as?

The complete lack of it. But I have no "disbelief" or "belief" as concerns any god, I just don't accept as true any of the various superstitious, supernatural non-sense claims made by any of the theists I have met.

So I contend that ''modern atheism'' is religious by it's nature, although holding that God does NOT exist.

Like not collecting stamps is a hobby? Like not playing baseball is a sport? A(without)theism(religion) is not a religion, by definition. There is no dogma, there are no precepts, it says nothing about a philosophy of life or the morality of the Atheist in question.

Oh, you mean the guy who vehemently maintained to his followers, that if it became known that he prayed to God on his deathbed, it must unders no circumstances be believed.

Theists have often claimed falsly that some famous people had a death bed conversion, Hitchens was simply pointing out that any claims that he accepted god would be a lie or the ravings of a diseased mind(his, or the theist making the claim).

It seems, though, that we define your doctrine as adamant refusal to believe.

No, it is an inability to believe such non-sense claims. You can not force yourself to believe anything your mind won't accept as plausable. And studies show that the more educated one is(IE the more knowledge you aquire)the less likely that they are gullible enough to accept preposterous claims, thus the importance of indoctrination at an early age before they have a chance to learn anything, even then it doesn't always work.

Grumpy

 

[wynn]

I do not have a belief that there is no god. Neither do I have a believe that there is a god.
However, I believe the chance that a god exists to be so small that it is insignificant.
I won't say the chance is zero because that would require extraordinary knowledge.
However, there is absolutely no indication anywhere in nature, that I am aware of, that a god exists.
I have never heard or come across even one good reason of why I should believe in a god.
Atheism, in it's core, is not a belief. It is absence of belief.

Can you define what you mean by the word "god" as used in the above sentences?

 

[Enmos]

Can you define what you mean by the word "god" as used in the above sentences?

A supernatural being such as described in the bible and koran.

 

[wynn]

A supernatural being such as described in the bible and koran.

In that case, you are either operating out of an incomplete version of the Abrahamic notion of God, or you are just plain contradicting yourself.

However, there is absolutely no indication anywhere in nature, that I am aware of, that a god exists.

The Abrahamists are saying that God created everything and permeates everything.

So to insist in what you are saying above, it means that you are not working with the Abrahamic notion of God to begin with.

 

[Enmos]

In that case, you are either operating out of an incomplete version of the Abrahamic notion of God, or you are just plain contradicting yourself.

How am I contradicting myself? I was just keeping the definition broad.

The Abrahamists are saying that God created everything and permeates everything.

Yes, and?

So to insist in what you are saying above, it means that you are not working with the Abrahamic notion of God to begin with.

Could you explain why you think that the Abrahamic notion of God doesn't fit with what I've said above??
Are you suggesting that there is indication of a god in nature (even that I'm aware of it)?

 

[wynn]

The Abrahamists are saying that God created everything and permeates everything.

Yes, and?

So what issue is there with proving that God exists?

If you work with the above definition of God, it is internally inconsistent to try to prove then that God exists.


As long as you want to prove that God exists, you have to work with such definitions of God that actually have the scope to be proven or disproven.
Abrahamic definitions are not like that.

 

[wynn]

Asking

"Can we prove that the Abrahamic God exists?"

is like asking

"Is this blue pen blue?"

 

[Enmos]

So what issue is there with proving that God exists?

If you work with the above definition of God, it is internally inconsistent to try to prove then that God exists.


As long as you want to prove that God exists, you have to work with such definitions of God that actually have the scope to be proven or disproven.
Abrahamic definitions are not like that.

I don't get you. Really.

Theists are telling me such a god exists. I don't see any indication of god. I don't see any reason to believe in something I don't see any indication of.
Hell, I don't feel the need to prove someones claim that something exists that I don't see any indication of.
What's the difficulty here?

 

[Enmos]

Asking

"Can we prove that the Abrahamic God exists?"

is like asking

"Is this blue pen blue?"

I tell you what. You give me your definition of god and I'll tell you if I believe such a god exists. Then we can discuss your arguments, if you have any.

 

[wynn]

I don't get you. Really.

I kind of expected that.

Theists are telling me such a god exists. I don't see any indication of god.

Because you're not actually accepting their definition of "God."

But you nevertheless claim you are accepting their definition of "God."


If you would accept their definition of "God", you would also see indications of God.

I don't see any reason to believe in something I don't see any indication of.
Hell, I don't feel the need to prove someones claim that something exists that I don't see any indication of.
What's the difficulty here?

The difficulty here is that you are simultaneously holding, or trying to hold, two mutually exclusive positions:
On the one hand, you say you accept the Abrahamic definition of God,
and on the other hand, you aren't accepting it.

 

[wynn]

I tell you what. You give me your definition of god and I'll tell you if I believe such a god exists. Then we can discuss your arguments, if you have any.

I'm not trying to convince you to believe in God, so I have no interest in the kind of exchange you are suggesting above.

 

[Enmos]

Because you're not actually accepting their definition of "God."

But you nevertheless claim you are accepting their definition of "God."

I accept that that's how they define their god. Since they are the ones claiming existence of god I have no choice but to adopt their definition for the sake of discussion.
That does not mean I have to believe that the definition describes reality.

If you would accept their definition of "God", you would also see indications of God.

No, I would see what they claim to be indications of god.
I don't accept their definition as an accurate description of reality.

I also accept definitions of fairies, dragons, etc.
I can see what people, that believe in such things, claim to be indications of such things. That doesn't mean I believe such things to be real.
The fact that when a kid puts a tooth under his pillow it will be replaced by a coin by morning is an indication to the kid, that believes in the tooth fairy, that the tooth fairy is real. I see what the kid claims to be indications of the existence of the tooth fairy, yet that doesn't mean that I believe the tooth fairy to be real.

The difficulty here is that you are simultaneously holding, or trying to hold, two mutually exclusive positions:
On the one hand, you say you accept the Abrahamic definition of God,
and on the other hand, you aren't accepting it.

See above.

I'm not trying to convince you to believe in God, so I have no interest in the kind of exchange you are suggesting above.

No problem.

 

[wynn]

I don't accept their definition as an accurate description of reality.

In that case, you should say the above, rather than

there is absolutely no indication anywhere in nature, that I am aware of, that a god exists.

Because when you say

there is absolutely no indication anywhere in nature, that I am aware of, that a god exists.

by "god" you do not mean the Abrahamic notion of "God."

 

[Enmos]

by "god" you do not mean the Abrahamic notion of "God."

I do.
I accept the Abrahamic definition of God and yet I see no indications of said gods existence.
See tooth fairy example.


Edit
Perhaps this will help: I see no indications that god did it.

The kid will see what happened as proof that the tooth fairy exists because the definition of the tooth fairy says that tooth fairies replace teeth with coins.
In other words, the kid only sees the replacement as proof of existence because he has an a priori belief that the definition of the tooth fairy describes reality accurately, not because there are indications that the tooth fairy actually did it.

 

[decons]

There are different levels of religious practice and experience, and it takes more effort to believe something than not to believe it.

Besides, we are not born with religion. You'll see that it is a social rather than divine knowledge if you take a child from one religious environment to another. Therefore the question is,

"Why and how did you become religious?"

P.S. Please do not answer this question here. Do it on your own time, and in your own mind. None of my business.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

As long as you want to prove that God exists, you have to work with such definitions of God that actually have the scope to be proven or disproven.
Abrahamic definitions are not like that.

Actually many abrahamic definitions of god are falsifiable. The very common christian definition of god as a supernatural being who's omnipotent(as well as various other omni words) is entirely falsified because of it's own internal inconsistency. And this is merely one example of an abrahamic god who is falsifiable.

The Hebrew god of the old testament(again, an abrahamic god) was another entirely falsifiable character(who's been entirely falsified) as he not only acted in real time on a scale that we can perceive(what with all of the miracles and whatnot) but he also openly communicated with people. Given that these actions, all of which were physical(according to the bible) actions, "ceased" to occur at around the same time as we developed the ability to record such events for posterity, and given that these actions should still be occurring(again, according to the bible), the only rational conclusion that one can come to is that the absence of evidence in this case is evidence of absence.

If you're going to troll, then at least have the common courtesy to do so intelligently.

But you nevertheless claim you are accepting their definition of "God."

Granting a premise for the sake of a conversation(whatever form that conversation may take) is not synonymous with accepting said premise to actually be true. What Enmos is doing is the former, not the latter(which is what you seem to think should be done), and is not only perfectly acceptable but is really the only way which two people with divergent opinions on a thing can discuss said thing in a civil manner. When two people with different opinions are discussing something someone is going to have to grant a premise in order for the discussion to move forward, this is just basic common sense.

Why you seem to lack the clarity to distinguish between the two is something that you should think long and hard about because it might help you understand why you have difficulties communicating with many people here.

 

[wynn]

A mix of enlightenment and contempt! How capital!

 

[aaqucnaona]

A mix of enlightenment and contempt! How capital!

Wynn, I honestly no longer get what you mean by this whole enlightened thingie you have going. Do elaborate, please?

 

[Aqueous Id]

@wynn --
The Hebrew god of the old testament(again, an abrahamic god) was another entirely falsifiable character(who's been entirely falsified) as he not only acted in real time on a scale that we can perceive(what with all of the miracles and whatnot) but he also openly communicated with people. Given that these actions, all of which were physical(according to the bible) actions, "ceased" to occur at around the same time as we developed the ability to record such events for posterity, and given that these actions should still be occurring(again, according to the bible), the only rational conclusion that one can come to is that the absence of evidence in this case is evidence of absence.

Interesting how clear you made that. Falsifiable normally doesn't apply when God is in the transcendental state. But when God appears in real time and interacts with people, the null hypothesis gives way to the alternative. Now falsifiable applies, and the findings that falsify God are logically valid and correct.

The voice of reason.

 

[Arioch]

@Aqueous --

Well it's not like I haven't participated in this conversation before, I've had a lot of time to clarify my arguments.