Once upon a time I was officially an Atheist....

Dades

scouser.tommy wrote:

Apparently because no God would have taken their mother like that. I asked if there were other reasons and there weren't. It was the typical (if understandable) difficulty in believing in an omnipotent benevolent God. But the absence of an omnipotent benevolent God is not necessarily the absence of any God. So this alone doesn't add up to Atheism. Yet this person believed that Atheism was correct. I want to make clear that my atheist friend is no idiot and I respect them and their choice of religion, but I still maintain that their expressed reason for said choice is logically unsound.

That seems like a sound reason to begin. I'm sure his reasoning went beyond his own immediate situation. I'd imagine a death like that calls for a lot of reflection. The pain and suffering that exists in world today is (for me) a very big reason to believe there isn't a benevolent god watching over.

And atheism isn't 'correct' or 'incorrect' - it's simply what you believe. Your friend had no doubt been told since he was tiny about the one and only real God. When he concluded that this God could be not reconciled with the world that he now knew - why should he be anything other than atheist? Should he immediately seek a replacement god?

Once his default religion has been rejected, unless he takes up a new one atheism is what you are left with - at least as far as a benevolent god is concerned. Ultimately we are back to where we were a couple of days ago - the definition of 'god'. Your friend looks like he isn't interested in entertaining the "anything we don't understand" as god, and I can respect that.

Schuhart

We know that the existence of pain/evil/Westlife is in fact one of the things that exercises religions quite a bit. So the fact that a personal experience might spark someone's thoughts in a particular direction does not strike me as irrational. Not everyone will necessarily have either the habit or inclination to talk about these things in a neutral manner. But they still may have the essential thrust of a valid argument.

I know there are some theologians who have speculated that the existance of evil can best be explained by saying either god is not all good or god is not all powerful, and opt for the second as they feel the idea that the universe is subject to a morally flawed god is too uncomfortable a concept to deal with. That said (going way beyond my knowledge) I think there was some philosphy - Manicheism? - that suggested we are cast adrift in an evil, pain filled universe. That outlook probably made a lot of sense if you were living through the Black Death.

All of which is a long way round to pointing out that, as I understand it, both Christianity and Islam would maintain that god is good, just and all powerful. Hence, your friend reflecting through personal experience that this is not consistent with random death and misfortune, and surmising that this means mainstream religions are hokum looks sound to me. I don't see any particular need for him to seek out some weirdo sect that venerates pestilence just to cling to a theist conception of creation.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

That seems like a sound reason to begin. I'm sure his reasoning went beyond his own immediate situation. I'd imagine a death like that calls for a lot of reflection. The pain and suffering that exists in world today is (for me) a very big reason to believe there isn't a benevolent god watching over.

Indeed - contrary to the standard quote about foxholes, a large number of those who went to the trenches in WWI as Christians came back as atheists. Many soldiers found it impossible to reconcile the inhumanity of the slaughter with the idea of a benevolent God, let alone a benevolent interventionist God.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pbsuxok1znja4r

The Atheist wrote:

And atheism isn't 'correct' or 'incorrect' - it's simply what you believe.

Well, if you look at what I said, you'll see that I phrased it as "They believed that Atheism was correct". I know full well that it's simply what one believes.

The Atheist wrote:

Your friend looks like he isn't interested in entertaining the "anything we don't understand" as god, and I can respect that

You make it sound as if that were every Agnostic's (or more believing person's) thinking. That "anything we don't understand" must be God. I suppose I shouldn't be suprised if you do seek to portray agnosticism as being so irrational. Whatever. The fact is, the world being, for us, such an 'evil' place does not rule out the possibility that some God exists, whether he be benevolent, omnipotent, pestilent, or whether he be Galactus®: The Eater Of Worlds! You just can't know.

wrote:

I don't see any particular need for him to seek out some weirdo sect that venerates pestilence just to cling to a theist conception of creation.

Haha, I hadn't thought of this. And why wouldn't they, if they thought the universe was really being run by some all-powerful, evil force?
'Clinging'. Now there's an apt word, folks. This word is essential to what I'm talking about, re: people holding certain beliefs for the wrong reasons, whether it be Theists or Atheists.

A question for you, if you don't mind: Do you still believe that you yourself have an open mind with regard to Atheism/Theism? I mean, if new evidence came to your attention that could somehow potentially change the whole ball-game, do you really believe that you yourself could face up to giving that evidence due, objective consideration, with whatever belief-shaking implications it might carry with it?
Something to ask yourself / think about.

Scofflaw

scouser.tommy wrote:

A question for you, if you don't mind: Do you still believe that you yourself have an open mind with regard to Atheism/Theism? I mean, if new evidence came to your attention that could somehow potentially change the whole ball-game, do you really believe that you yourself could face up to giving that evidence due, objective consideration, with whatever belief-shaking implications it might carry with it?
Something to ask yourself / think about.

Not sure if your question was intended generally, but I've been an alatrist/atheist for over 30 years, and I certainly think I'm open to new evidence. Unfortunately, so far all the evidence I've been presented with requires what geologists call the "eye of faith" - you have to want to see God in it.

The recent flooding of New Orleans is an excellent example - there are plenty of people who are happy to present that as evidence of an interventionist deity...a notion that, in the absence of faith, is really rather unpleasant, as well as absurd.

It seems to me that if there were evidence for God that could be accepted without faith, there would be no unbelievers. There would also be a camera crew, documentaries, etc etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

scouser.tommy wrote:

You make it sound as if that were every Agnostic's (or more believing person's) thinking. That "anything we don't understand" must be God. I suppose I shouldn't be suprised if you do seek to portray agnosticism as being so irrational. Whatever. The fact is, the world being, for us, such an 'evil' place does not rule out the possibility that some God exists, whether he be benevolent, omnipotent, pestilent, or whether he be Galactus®: The Eater Of Worlds! You just can't know.

Two things. I never deemed agnosticism as irrational - the difference between that and atheism boils down to your definition of god. I have mine - others have theirs. Secondly I haven't ruled out any type of god - I just don't believe any exist. Why should I? Just because so many people are fixated with the belief that gods exist can I not believe they don't?

scouser.tommy wrote:

'Clinging'. Now there's an apt word, folks. This word is essential to what I'm talking about, re: people holding certain beliefs for the wrong reasons, whether it be Theists or Atheists.

Still waiting on a "wrong reason" for atheism.

scouser.tommy wrote:

A question for you, if you don't mind: Do you still believe that you yourself have an open mind with regard to Atheism/Theism? I mean, if new evidence came to your attention that could somehow potentially change the whole ball-game, do you really believe that you yourself could face up to giving that evidence due, objective consideration, with whatever belief-shaking implications it might carry with it?
Something to ask yourself / think about.

Good question. Admittedly it would be very tough to come up with something to change the ball game, so-to-speak. The evidence would have to be good, very good. Something that couldn't be mistaken for anything other than an unequivical message. (Or possible to be done by man).

I gave an example in the Christianity forum of one day all the planets of the solar system suddenly aligning themselves, in conjection to a message delivered to every person on earth, in every language. Now that would be god-like.

Thats the kind of sign that gives somebody creator kudos. A tortilla that looks like Jesus won't cut it.

While I'm ranting, let me ask you a question. If we found out from that message that aliens planted the seeds of life on earth a billion years ago, and left us alone; are they gods?

pH

So basically this is once again coming down to 'how irrational an atheist is', 'agnostics are the only ones with any sense' type argument. Quel surprise

Anyway I'm way above all this atheist/agnostic twaddle now I've become an ignostic. If only we could have a forum where ignostic ideas could be discussed without being attacked by closed minded agnostics ...

robindch

> I'm wondering: do you believe there are no atheists who have arrived at
> Atheism by unsound logic?

I'm sure there are some who've done this. Perhaps even plenty!

> But the absence of an omnipotent benevolent God is not necessarily the
> absence of any God. So this alone doesn't add up to Atheism.

No, but you'll be as familiar as I am with the huge number of people -- on this board and elsewhere -- who say that god *is* benevolent, and he's omnipotent and omniscient and all the rest. It's quite easy to see that what's described by these good people, and proclaimed by preachers from pulpits throughout the land, is imbued with a slew of heroic, but completely contradictory, qualities which verge on the schizophrenic. It's not a great step of logic to say, "nah, that's rubbish, that is!" and that's the atheism which I subscribe to.

> it would not matter to you whether you or anyone else arrived at an
> Atheistic perspective through flawed logic/thinking, so long as they
> did, as an end, arrive at Atheism?

I don't care whether or anybody else is an atheist or not, and if they are, I don't care how they arrived there. This is a personal issue for them and I've no interest in it one way or the other.

But it's interesting that you ask the question, because it suggests that you view atheism as a competing religion whose only interest is in gaining converts, presumably at the expense of your religion, and thereby suggesting that group-size is an important consideration to religionists. It's not like that. Actually, it was put well by a poster some months ago: "Atheism is just another religion like not-collecting stamps is just another hobby".

.

pH

robindch wrote:

But it's interesting that you ask the question, because it suggests that you view atheism as a competing religion whose only interest is in gaining converts, presumably at the expense of yours. It's not like that. Actually, it was put well by a poster some months ago: "Atheism is just another religion like not-collecting stamps is just another hobby".

Yes - and some of those people who are not collecting stamps are not collecting stamps for very unsound reasons.

Schuhart

pH wrote:

Anyway I'm way above all this atheist/agnostic twaddle now I've become an ignostic. If only we could have a forum where ignostic ideas could be discussed without being attacked by closed minded agnostics ...

Non-Believer. Persecute the heretic.

CatStevens

abetarrush
what about the following story

This episode was about Uncle Tom and mother Lisa, who just were battling over the custody of thei little girl, Tom claiming he had to save her life 'cause her mother wants to marry another guy, her husband died, So the woman who was the Mother's Lawer went to see the little girl, and the little girl said
I know my Mommy won't save my life Because she isn't my mother
Because if she was my mother, she would'nt do this to me and marry another guy!

Does it make sense?
Who said that we are living in a perfect life? life with no problems no violence or whateva? we are not living in paradise, this life wasn't created to be perfect, why to believe in god life must be perfect yet god couldn't be perfect when created an imperfect life?

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens