Current Events > How is it possible to be an atheist?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Terra-enforcer posted...

The whole root of most religion is belief, so no duh there's no physical evidence.

I'd wager that most theists believe that their god manifests itself in the physical world. They pray and get results. That's at the core of every religion. When you claim that these things are happening in the physical world, there must be physical evidence.

And yeah, people get mad at religion. Mostly because of religious people fucking shit up all the time. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that lots of religious parents wouldn't be happy with an atheist child.
---

ShinigamiSoul posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

ShinigamiSoul posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I reject the claim that god exists.

Y

For the same reason that I reject claims of anything without sufficient backing. Because it doesn't have sufficient backing.

I don't believe you completely reject the claim that God exists. I see you in topics like this all the time, and I think you're still searching for your sufficient backing.

I do reject the claim that gods exist. But the reason you see me in these topics is because I live in a society that very much still wrestles with the idea of not believing in god. I don't need to believe in god in order for myself and my society to be influenced by people who do.
---

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

I'm no scientist, but it's a possibility, to feel as if there's something "bigger" out there in this vast universe. Given that most people do hold theistic beliefs, there might be a correlation here.

It's undeniable that people feel that to be the case. But religion and shared myth seems to have emerged after homo sapiens, not at the same time. Which may suggest it is a learned behavior, not genetic.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

I'm no scientist, but it's a possibility, to feel as if there's something "bigger" out there in this vast universe. Given that most people do hold theistic beliefs, there might be a correlation here.

It's undeniable that people feel that to be the case. But religion and shared myth seems to have emerged after homo sapiens, not at the same time. Which may suggest it is a learned behavior, not genetic.

I'm not sure how I was introduced to the concept of God. All I know is, I likely never put any though into it and believing just seemed like the right choice and I wouldn't dare question it.

Indoctrination certainly didn't play a role. Of course, every experience is different.
---

Mystere posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

Ah, I love it when they demand "evidence!" or "proof!" to God's existence.

Cute stuff.

Maybe it is because atheists can't understand why people would choose to follow unprovable myths when there is perfectly good reality out there.

You mean where men are women and vice versa?

Not saying I believe in God, but reality is well on it's way to being as goofy as any religion.

Also some people here think atheism is the same as agnosticism.

Think about what you said here. What we can see and touch is as goofy as a imaginary being. Transgenderism is a thing that will be proven or disproven by evidence. The world constantly changing doesn't somehow give the possibility of god more credence because the concept is conveniently supposed to be beyond our understanding and a matter of faith. I can't live on that. To stick with the example you mention, I think transgenderism is a legitimate condition that isn't a delusion because I can find evidence that supports that claim. People who disagree with me can present evidence that support their claim. Even I disagree with it or the interpretation of their evidence, they can hopefully make a logical argument based in tangible things. If I do turn out to have been backing bad evidence, I will toss out what I know. Those arguments can't be made for God. Logic, common sense, evidence-based arguments are all thrown out the window to make God work. Why should I treat religious beliefs as more valid than any other babbling insanity? When someone tells me there is a god, they might as well be telling me that they were probed in the anus by Obama's true insectoid form on the planet Kavordav-9.
---

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

I'm no scientist, but it's a possibility, to feel as if there's something "bigger" out there in this vast universe. Given that most people do hold theistic beliefs, there might be a correlation here.

It's undeniable that people feel that to be the case. But religion and shared myth seems to have emerged after homo sapiens, not at the same time. Which may suggest it is a learned behavior, not genetic.

I'm not sure how I was introduced to the concept of God. All I know is, I likely never put any though into it and believing just seemed like the right choice and I wouldn't dare question it.

Indoctrination certainly didn't play a role. Of course, every experience is different.

You were most certainly introduced to the concept of God without even realizing it. It's unavoidable in English-speaking societies. You may not have been indoctrinated in the intentional sense, but we're all exposed to our culture from the very beginning. And in many cases, that includes gods.
---

Because an infinite universe doesn't mean that I have to choose a single faith to believe in. I see no evidence of any religion I've encountered, so I am an atheist.

Dragonblade01 posted...

The Big Bang model, even if it happens to be wrong, is the best explanation we have so far. That's why we use it. It, like all scientific explanations, is tentative. Second, we know life happened. It emerged here at the very least by some means. Therefore, it doesn't really matter how unlikely something might be if we're talking about something that already is. Not to mention the fact that the origin of life on this planet is far from settled in the first place.

None of that explains how it's somehow more likely than a God existing.
---

Terra-enforcer posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

The Big Bang model, even if it happens to be wrong, is the best explanation we have so far. That's why we use it. It, like all scientific explanations, is tentative. Second, we know life happened. It emerged here at the very least by some means. Therefore, it doesn't really matter how unlikely something might be if we're talking about something that already is. Not to mention the fact that the origin of life on this planet is far from settled in the first place.

None of that explains how it's somehow more likely than a God existing.

It's more likely based on what we know. And all we can really go by is what we know, regardless of whether what we know turns out to be wrong or not. We have testable information that supports the Big Bang model. We have direct observations that support the Big Bang model. No deity has that; and until one does, there is no reason to accept the claim that they exist.
---

Proverbs 14:33

Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning and even among fools she lets herself be known.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Mystere posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

Ah, I love it when they demand "evidence!" or "proof!" to God's existence.

Cute stuff.

Maybe it is because atheists can't understand why people would choose to follow unprovable myths when there is perfectly good reality out there.

You mean where men are women and vice versa?

Not saying I believe in God, but reality is well on it's way to being as goofy as any religion.

Also some people here think atheism is the same as agnosticism.

Think about what you said here. What we can see and touch is as goofy as a imaginary being. Transgenderism is a thing that will be proven or disproven by evidence. The world constantly changing doesn't somehow give the possibility of god more credence because the concept is conveniently supposed to be beyond our understanding and a matter of faith. I can't live on that. To stick with the example you mention, I think transgenderism is a legitimate condition that isn't a delusion because I can find evidence that supports that claim. People who disagree with me can present evidence that support their claim. Even I disagree with it or the interpretation of their evidence, they can hopefully make a logical argument based in tangible things. If I do turn out to have been backing bad evidence, I will toss out what I know. Those arguments can't be made for God. Logic, common sense, evidence-based arguments are all thrown out the window to make God work. Why should I treat religious beliefs as more valid than any other babbling insanity? When someone tells me there is a god, they might as well be telling me that they were probed in the anus by Obama's true insectoid form on the planet Kavordav-9.

All I was getting at is people are all "HA! Religion!" and a lot of them don't realize that the world itself is becoming laughable as fuck too.

For the record, I'm not arguing in favor of God. I severely doubt there's a God considering the size of the OBSERVABLE universe. That's like picking up a grain of sand, busting it into a billion pieces, picking up one of those pieces and then claiming that piece is important and everything else on Earth is just filler.

Acting like life and existence was made FOR US by someone who made us IN HIS IMAGE is the most arrogant thing ever. We're less than a speck.

Terra-enforcer posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

The Big Bang model, even if it happens to be wrong, is the best explanation we have so far. That's why we use it. It, like all scientific explanations, is tentative. Second, we know life happened. It emerged here at the very least by some means. Therefore, it doesn't really matter how unlikely something might be if we're talking about something that already is. Not to mention the fact that the origin of life on this planet is far from settled in the first place.

None of that explains how it's somehow more likely than a God existing.

It's more likely than God existing because God is supposed to be an all powerful being that's greater than anything else, which makes his existence more improbable than anything else. By comparison, life began with a simple cell that was capable of little else than the most basic things that living things can do. The probability of a simple thing being formed is much higher than the probability of an infinitely complex being always existing in all its perfection by pure chance.
---

I believe that if a higher being, it is connected to nature. I don't believe any further than that.
---

How can you be so sure that unicorns don't exist, if they're invisible to mortals with no special powers?
Or magic? Or stands?
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

Terra-enforcer posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

The Big Bang model, even if it happens to be wrong, is the best explanation we have so far. That's why we use it. It, like all scientific explanations, is tentative. Second, we know life happened. It emerged here at the very least by some means. Therefore, it doesn't really matter how unlikely something might be if we're talking about something that already is. Not to mention the fact that the origin of life on this planet is far from settled in the first place.

None of that explains how it's somehow more likely than a God existing.

It's more likely than God existing because God is supposed to be an all powerful being that's greater than anything else, which makes his existence more improbable than anything else. By comparison, life began with a simple cell that was capable of little else than the most basic things that living things can do. The probability of a simple thing being formed is much higher than the probability of an infinitely complex being always existing in all its perfection by pure chance.

Classic butters right here, folks
---