By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why Are You An Atheist?

mornelithe on 13 May 2015
padib said:
mornelithe said:

That's because, as JWein said, the idea that it was created by a God doesn't allow for any predictions, nor is it testable.  And when discussing science...science has a ridiculously high level of proof required before a thing becomes certain (Six Sigma standard).  People are actively trying to disprove virtually everything we've come to know up to this point, and if you were to apply those same standards to any of the theist beliefs, well, it wouldn't pass any kind of scrutiny.  Again, this is not meant as a slam, I'm merely trying to explain why invoking a God in these instances is met with such resistance.  Assuming the God concept for areas we don't understand currently (and you'd need to be more specific about the awes of nature, because we've come to understand a GREAT deal about nature) discourages critical thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the world around us.  That is simply not healthy.  Because eventually we come to a point where all there is is those gaps, but we've never taken an active step to understand those gaps, because God has been plugged into it.

The problem with thinking that the first humans didn't have this defect or that defect is the first humans didn't have access to any kind of medical knowledge.  Cancer goes back a very, very long time.  And it's illogical to suggest no such things existed back then, if nobody was there to observe it and understand what it is they're seeing.  It's like the tree falling in the forest riddle.  If nobody is there, does it make a sound?  

Remember, early humans thought sacrificing children to Gods, brought rain, or a good harvest.  We understand now, that's simply barbaric ignorance, and rarely do such things occur this day and age (there are some places where such things still occur, sadly, but those involved are usually arrested).

I think that fear of a lack of critical thinking in religious people is a flawed generalization. Critical thinking is a trait of intelligence. Some people, perhaps a minority, have chosen religion due to critical thinking. This is my personal position. I have been exposed to everything science teaches us today yet I am not convinced at all. My critical thinking is stopping me from doing everything that would be so much more easy to believe, meaning "Do what thou wilt". But my reason is telling me that it is so improbable that life stemmed from nothing, in all its complexity, that my critical thinking brings me back to a deity. For me, this question is beyond valid, it's profound, even existential. It is far from being a question like "does Santa exist".

Critical thinking, I strongly believe, is a trait that indicates intelligence. Many people imho on the other side of the wall listen to what the scientific community dictates as truth and refuse anything else but cannon. So the issue can be found on all sides, it is due to human insecurity, we all need something to latch onto, no matter what ideology we adhere to.

I propose to you to rethink your position: that religious people are non-critical and that those who are non-religious are free of critical thinking. imho that is untrue.

P.S. I left you a reply in my edit to JWeinCom.

Well, you're misusing the term belief, and 'canon' when it comes to science.  As I said, people actively try to disprove everything we know, because...quite frankly, if you can disprove things like gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics etc... you would be an instant rock star among the scientific community.  You would literally get a Nobel for that.  But it has yet to happen because the science behind it is quite solid, do we know everything?  Nope.  But, we make progress every day.

The other thing is, if our understanding of things weren't as good as it is, many, many things would not work.  If our understanding of Quantum Mechanics was wrong, computers wouldn't work.  If our understanding of Gravity was wrong, planes would not fly.  It's that simple.  It's not a matter of believing anything.  The proof is right in front of you, you're using it to have this conversation with me.  

I did not say religious people are non-critical, I said plugging God into the gaps in our knowledge doesn't encourage critical thinking.  There's a MASSIVE difference.  So, you may need to rethink my response there.



Around the Network
Aielyn on 13 May 2015
sales2099 said:

Being perfectly honest here, seems some atheists are one because they simply have parental issues born out of teenage rebellion tendencies.

Also noting is that most come from predominately Christian families and due to living in secular countries, there is no real pressure from either parents or state to pressure the next generation to adopt said religion.

 You certainly won't see many atheists coming from Muslim or Jewish backgrounds.

My father was raised in a Jewish household. He ended up being an atheist. His father, my grandfather, was quite religious until the death of my grandmother, at which time he lost his faith... but he kept up the traditions for the sake of family (he eventually remarried, to a woman who was, and is, still an observant (but very liberal) Jew). One of my step-aunts is highly orthodox Jewish... and her son is an atheist.

In fact, I know quite a few atheists of Jewish background, including quite a few in my own family, when you total it up.

As for Muslim backgrounds, it most certainly happens. In many cases, it's kept quiet, because a lot of Muslim communities are likely to outcast someone for converting away from Islam (this happens with Christians, too, but it's a lot less common for modern Christians to do it) - and so, those who are atheist won't admit it in public. And in some countries, the risk is even worse than just ostracisation. In Iran, atheism can get you the death penalty. Also true in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (this one might be outdated), Sudan, Mauritania, Maldives, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Somalia, UAE, and Yemen. Note that Nigeria is not a particularly Muslim nation (it's about 50/50 Muslim and Christian, and it was a Christian president that put forward the laws against atheism).

You've made some broad, sweeping claims, and made assertions of fact without any evidence. And there is plenty of evidence contradicting your claims.



ice on 13 May 2015
Esiar said:
:-o I come back and one of the threads on the top has to do with religion?!?!?! And it is when I come back from bein inactive for a bit?!?!?! YES!

Well I am a Christian, so I believe that Atheists are Atheists because they hate God and don't want him to exist, so they lie to themselves and say that there is no evidence for the existence of God even though It's right in front of them.




Esiar on 13 May 2015
iceland said:
Esiar said:
:-o I come back and one of the threads on the top has to do with religion?!?!?! And it is when I come back from bein inactive for a bit?!?!?! YES!

Well I am a Christian, so I believe that Atheists are Atheists because they hate God and don't want him to exist, so they lie to themselves and say that there is no evidence for the existence of God even though It's right in front of them.


Juan (Hoo-ah-n) = One 

Examples - Juan Direction, Juan two three.

In Spanish, John is Juan.

So instead of the book of John in the Bible is el libro de Juan

John 1:1 is Juan Juan Juan

B)



Can't wait for The Zelder Scrolls 3: Breath of The Wild Hunt!

mornelithe on 13 May 2015
padib said:

@Mornelithe. I didn't take your post as a slam, it sounded very polite and kind. But what I replied was a real confusion that I have when talking about origins. At once an atheist will gush at the wonders of nature, and at another time when the possibility of a maker is brought forward, examples as to how nature is flawed are given. I understand the position to rule out a maker, but to me it comes as a double standard.

Well, part of the problem is, again as JWein indicated, is the perfect nature that is described by many religious individuals, of this being.  That's problematic when discussing a creator.  Because of the examples that I've already provided...but, that doesn't mean I can't be in awe of nature at the same time.  Just because nature is imperfect, doesn't mean that tarnishes the whole thing...you know?  Perfection is an unreasonable expectation, in my opinion.



Around the Network
gooch_destroyer on 13 May 2015

huh. Big discussion.



mornelithe on 13 May 2015
padib said:

The way the creationist scientists describe it is that there are two types of disciplines in science: historical science and repeatable science. For the origins debate, much of what we read about are major extrapolations of things that happened in the past and are non-repeatable. My PC exists due to years of trial and error in a variety of fields. I am a software engineer by education so I'm familiar with the history of it. It was repeatable and reliable (well, most of the time :P).

My response was not clear, nor did it properly identify your point of view, but the point I was trying to make is that, to worry about religion as a deterrent to critical thinking is mostly throwing the baby with the bathwater. I agree that some communities can be wrought with conformist tendencies, or dogmatic ones. I know that because I am a critical thinker and I often run into arguments with my father, who is much more involved in the community than I am.

Though while being religious, I can't reject my critical thought. As a matter of fact it is the reason I'm a believer today anyways! Some days I have doubts about my faith, but every time I fall back to the ultimate question "how did we get here?", I realize "this was not by chance". It's too amazing to be a product of time and randomness, no way! My mind refuses it. Love, laugher, the complexity of our genetics, the laws of physics themselves, all from nothing and time and randomness? No way.

And with that position, to think "I believe God made this", it does not remove from me in any way my desire to learn more about the world I live in! Dogmatism is a human flaw, not a religious one, and it exists everywhere.

See, I don't worry about religion, unless someone is attempting to force their beliefs upon me.  Make me live my life according to the words in their holy books.  The only time I ever really think deeply about religion vs science, is in discussions such as this.  Beyond that, it rarely enters my mind.   When people attempt to put forth unprovable, and poor science into classrooms, that concerns me as well.  I have a very serious problem with indoctrinating Children, but beyond that, what we know of the world, works without God.  And we should be giving children the ability to think for themselves, and when they're actually of the age of reason, they should be able to choose for themselves.  The historical science vs repeatable science has already been covered in the Ken Hamm vs Bill Nye debate, so there's no real need to go over it again (if you're curious, I'd suggest taking a look). 

I also suggest reading a Universe from Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss.  You may disagree with the it, but that is currently our best understanding of how our Universe came to be.  Dogmatism will always be a religious flaw, if Religious texts and claims are not allowed to be scrutinized with the same level of skepticism that we place upon science.



mornelithe on 13 May 2015
padib said:
mornelithe said:

Well, part of the problem is, again as JWein indicated, is the perfect nature that is described by many religious individuals, of this being.  That's problematic when discussing a creator.  Because of the examples that I've already provided...but, that doesn't mean I can't be in awe of nature at the same time.  Just because nature is imperfect, doesn't mean that tarnishes the whole thing...you know?  Perfection is an unreasonable expectation, in my opinion.

I understand your point of view.

The way I see nature (for example our genetics), it's like when Corban Dalace was in the lab resurrecting the perfect human (leelu) from the arm of an extra-terrestrial relic and we saw her uber-dna graphed and how she has super-human anatomy (from the movie: the Fifth Element). That's how I see humans, our own anatomy, our own complexity, the complexities of the mind, the cell in all its complexity. It is so amazing that a few questionable possible flaws are easily explainable, imho.

I own it on Blu Ray :P



hsrob on 13 May 2015
Esiar said:
:-o I come back and one of the threads on the top has to do with religion?!?!?! And it is when I come back from bein inactive for a bit?!?!?! YES!

Well I am a Christian, so I believe that Atheists are Atheists because they hate God and don't want him to exist, so they lie to themselves and say that there is no evidence for the existence of God even though It's right in front of them.


An atheist who hates God is not a very good atheist.



Helloplite on 13 May 2015

I am not an 'atheist', but I am not religious and I do not accept any man-made religion. I do not believe in 'God' (or think that 'God' exists), or in particular forms of godhood and divinity as presented in the vast majority of religions. To me, religions are a form of culture -- and I vastly prefer the culture of rationalism and scientific inquiry. There are many questions out there, but no answers in religion.

Among the benefits ot religion, I enlist the strengthening of community ties, and the spreading of 'morality' - which can have both negative and positive effects. I accept that followers of a religion can be very good and moral people, although I think it is rather anachronistic that we still need to base morality on some sort of external force to society. Society creates and undoes religions. Religion, as a construct of society, affects and interacts all other spheres, from politics to economics.