Your reason for atheism

@ OP

Simples... I don't buy what the bible is peddling.

Giants, unicorns, ghosts, demons, magic tricks, the list is endless really.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Do you seriously think that I am trying to 'pull the other one' with you? I don't know you so therefore have no interest in you or any desire to impress you. My posts -unlike yours- are pretty straight and to the point so you can believe them if you wish.

That's why you spend so much time devoting yourself to responding to me and telling me what you think. Okay. Have a good time. I want to get back on topic now, please.

Lack of evidence for gods means I can't believe in them.

Lack of decent argument for gods means I can't even entertain the idea in a serious way.

If there is good evidence or good arguments for gods, why don't theists use them?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lack of evidence for gods means I can't believe in them.

Lack of decent argument for gods means I can't even entertain the idea in a serious way.

If there is good evidence or good arguments for gods, why don't theists use them?

So you reckon the whole reason that we are in existance is just happenchance?

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Because I refuse to believe a "God" would allow babies to be born with disabilities and deformaties, that this all powerful being would allow starvation and famine, war etc I could go on and on.

Well just to take starvation, war and famine for starters. There is no reason for any of these to be happening other than the greed of human beings. It's actually sickening that me and you and everyone else in the free world go about our daily lives as normal while ordinary folk are being blown to smithereens as we speak in Alleppo.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well just to take starvation, war and famine for starters. There is no reason for any of these to be happening other than the greed of human beings. It's actually sickening that me and you and everyone else in the free world go about our daily lives as normal while ordinary folk are being blown to smithereens as we speak in Alleppo.

But a all loving god should stop our greed etc thats my point.

realdanbreen wrote:

So you reckon the whole reason that we are in existance is just happenchance?

Where fid you get that? I was answering the question 'why don't you believe in any of the gods'?

If you're asking what I think then I could speculate but the ultimate answer is that I don't know because there isn't really any evidence of 'why were here'.

Do you have evidence of why were here?

Being forced into mass as a child was the biggest influence, they just talked so much bollox.

But these days it's a simple logical decision. We now have a history of religion all the way back predating the current big three, all the way back to before civilization, all the way back to the hopes and desires of simple hunter gatherers who just wanted to have healthy children.

We can see religion develop and grow. We can see judaism develop, we can see it's influences, we can see it change into Christianity as a result of social conditions of the time. It was clearly made up by a group of people and there's no reason to believe these people who probably used psychedelic drugs as a way to see their god had any kind of insight beyond that of a primitive person of the time.

Their view of god isn't any more advanced than seeing their god as a really powerful king. God behaves like a king, the good and the bad. He's not above or beyond the most basic primal human emotions.

Continued logic also says that given what we know about the way the universe works it would be dumb for whatever created it to put so much effort into making something that works so well using natural processes from the big bang on and then start micromanaging it.

God: I've set up the rules of this universe so that gravity will force this one element to coalesce into stars which will go onto create heavier elements, which will in turn allow for complex organic compounds, which under the right conditions...... Wait.. Hold on a second.. Is that ape eating pork?! Son of a bitch just ruined the whole thing..

Interesting topic...

OP - Maybe i'm not getting it but i don't see how relating us to animals disproves the existence of a god. I'm not disagreeing with you in that we are indeed driven by the same desire to survive and procreate. I just don't get the link between that and atheism.

Cabaal wrote: »

You're an exception then, because the underlying message with the catholic church etc is to spread the word of its god and its religion. This includes trying to recruit new followers.

Do they though ? it's regularly mentioned on here how people who identify as RC don't attend mass let alone practice their faith so if they don't attend mass or practice why would they try and convert others to a faith they themselves don't partake in ?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, i just don't think it happens anything like as often as some people like to state. Jehovah's witnesses are an obvious exception but to be fair they're open about it and they always walk away as soon as i tell them i'm not interested. They certainly don't try and force their views on me. In 43 years, I can't recall a single instance where anyone of faith has tried to convert me or anyone close to me by forcing their views. Maybe i'm just lucky or maybe this argument is a bit of an urban myth. Personally I would go with the latter...

It's interesting to note how many responses automatically link religion with theism. It's totally understandable i suppose given the manner in which many of us were raised but for me, religion has nothing to do with a belief in god. In fact my complete disillusionment with religion was the reason i considered myself as atheist for a number of years. Religion is man made. It's utterly flawed. As already mentioned, the fact that somebody's religion is a mere accident of birth is evidence enough of that.

I didn't really have a big urika moment , faith and religion just played no real part in my life as a kid other then in school , i always found it hard to relate to the stories etc but given there about a 30 something yer old man living in the middle east 2000 years ago i suppose it would be hard for 90's kid in Dublin to relate to any of it.

a bit like you OP i'm big into animals and could always see the similarities more then the difference's between people and animals , and i always wondered if God made us in his image why wait till nearly last , like surly you start with the supreme animal the star of the show then all the weird and wonderful stuff but no literally nearly every species and subspecies on the planet today is older then man , not to mention the auld dinosaurs. So i never bought the stories.

what turned me really against religion i suppose was hours of arguments with an overly zelous religion teacher in secondry , the constant stream of stomach churing child abuse perpatrated by RCC that came to light all throughout my formative years , and the rise of Islamic extremism thees things turned my to believing that religion was not just harmless fairytales for adults to make death seem less scary , but a genunie poision and evil in the world.

learn_more wrote: »

Some responders have said so far well it was all the bull they heard at mass. Or the multitude of different religions that exist. Or the pain and suffering that especially some kids have to suffer. None of these things disprove god or a creator. But these things do matter when it comes to belief in god or not. It's the It's doesn't ring true factor for me, rather than academic arguments, that mean that I remain an atheist.

Interesting that you put it that way. I'm a nerd princess through and through, and for me the "academic" argument is the most compelling one. I admit my deconversion "moment" came when I was reading the Bible one Easter morning to try to figure out how we got the God of popular mythology out of the actual words of the Bible, and the more I read, the more it fell apart like cheap chewing gum in the mouth. I didn't go directly from "the God of the Church can't be found in the inconsistent, laughable, deplorable crap that makes up the Bible" to "no religion makes the grade" in one day, though.

As for proof and disproof, I certainly do not accept in any way the burden of disproof when I am not the one making the claim; it is, however, possible to point out that the most common claims about the Christian God result in illogical nonsense. One common argument among religious debaters on both sides is that you can't prove/disprove a negative. But you can, trivially; if you make the claim that all the students have gone in from recess (= "it is not the case that there are students on the playground"), I can obviously point out the presence of Johnnie and Susie as refutation. If you claim "these shoes don't fit", it is quite possible for us to come up with appropriate definitions of "shoes" and "fit" that prove that yes, you are right, the shoes don't fit. It is not necessary to ask, "have you personally examined every student and every square inch of the playground at every point in time to make sure you're right", or "have you tried every possible style and size of shoes on every pair of human feet at every stage of development". However, I've had many, many Christians say, "You cannot deny the existence of the Christian God without addressing every possible definition of God that can ever be proposed". The argument is typically phrased as repeated iterations of "Well, some people believe God is like THIS...", and when I have to leave the chat to, you know, go to the loo, or sleep, I am accused of running away from the debate. No, sir. I am refusing to buy a pair of shoes because they don't fit; I am not obliged to try on every pair in the shop, and then pretend all the gloves are shoes and try them on my feet as well just because the German for glove is Handschuh ("hand shoe"), and then wait for every delivery truck in the factory to arrive with the new season's styles that have not been designed yet. And if you attempt to tell me that the shoes fit you, therefore they should fit me, I will give you that look.

learn_more wrote: »

I like that answer. That's you personal reason and I'm just interested in what peoples personal reasons are. It's not like every atheist will give the same answer. The brutal logic one doesn't work for me which is why I don't buy the Kalam Cosmological argument.

But not everyone is a nurd princess as you describe yourself : ) How do non-nurds make their decision? Going to an extreme how would someone with learning difficulties decide. Just wondering : )

Heh. Well, I can make a stab at your question, but that's asking a lot from am INTJ with Asperger's. If you're interested in astrology of various sorts, I'm a Virgo with Leo moon and Aries rising in the conventional Western system, Scorpio with Anuradha nakshatra in the Vedic system, born in the Fire Horse year in the Chinese system, and a 9 Serpent in the Mayan system, all of which add up to "I can't so much as take a deep breath without being a nerd", lol. The fact that I collected all of those things without giving astrology the least bit of credence says much as well, I think. Probably that it's late and I need to go to bed soon. :P

Religious "salespeople" have never pitched their arguments to nerds and other overanalytical, inquisitive sorts of people, though. Their arguments are meant, like much of marketing, to create and sell a solution to an invented need. They do this by overcoming something called "sales resistance", which can be usefully defined as "exercising critical thinking". The typical way of doing this is to work on the emotions. If you look at old ad campaigns from eighty to a hundred years ago, it will strike you how many appeal to reason ("our product is fifty percent more durable than the competition's product", for example). More sophisticated modern marketers use what in any other context would be considered "psychological warfare" to induce potential customers to buy the product.

In the case of Christianity, the sales pitch begins, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". You can see the commercial taking shape in your mind, if you wish. The beleagured, fallible human in a world too big and chaotic for them to cope with, like a tired, stressed-out housewife coping with a dirty house and a family that adds to her burdens by tracking mud through the kitchen and staining their laundry with mustard and underarm sweat. Disapproval from God, like a next-door neighbor pointing out to the entire neighborhood how much of a failure you are at keeping house. Salvation in the form of the intervention of Jesus with God and membership in the Church, like an Amway diamond executive promising you both washing powder in bulk and a way out of your troubles if you only agree to join his downline and sell it. You get the drift.

People with limited capacity for analysis (for whatever reason) are easily swayed by such appeals to emotion. It's said that a person who has not reasoned their way into something can't be reasoned out of it, and while that's mostly true, it is possible for someone to change from being uncritical and gullible by merely paying attention and realising that what they're told doesn't add up, or by noticing that they're being gulled for someone else's benefit. It's not uncommon, these days, for emotional reasons to play a large part in deconversion, too; just look at the disgust of many good Catholics, people who I'm sure would be good even if they weren't religious at all, at the child abuse scandals within the Church that have been coming to light, or the Protestant fanaticism that has been making the American political scene a worldwide laughingstock (nervous laughter, to be sure). Any of these things can act as the spark that lights the fire of personal discovery and sets the former Christian on the road out of Damascus.

Atheists don't seek to convert, exactly; that would make the whole exercise pointless. If religion still makes sense to someone and they need it, then atheists like me respect that. But we don't accept their religion's judgment on us when its judgment has been shown to be wrong, and maliciously wrong at that, in so many other ways. And we'd really like to not have to do the humanitarian work of picking up the pieces after they find that their religion has failed them; we'd rather prevent that sort of heartbreak, and people like me who are inclined to be overanalytical and overpractical are not always the best at nurturing those who religion has harmed.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well I have always liked to keep it simple.
You and me and shep the dog and Daisy the cow exist today and live our lives-fact.
Somewhere at sometime something was created to get you, me, shep & daisy to this point-fact. I believe there must have been a creator while others like yourself don't believe that .

Heh, how do you get from "nothing" to "Creator"... simply? I would have thought that something like a Creator of the Universe would be the very opposite of "simple". Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on what a simple Creator would be like.

realdanbreen wrote: »

You need to concentrate a bit more when reading my posts. I never said the creator was simple. Anyway I have laid out my stall for believing in a creator, what's your explanation for being in existance today? BTW and it's me not you, but I rarely read a post that rambles on for more than 10 or 15 lines.

Yes, you want everything simple. A simple man you are. Divine simplicity, that's your bag. If you can't say it while standing on one leg before you put your foot down, it's not for Danny. Thinking is just too much work for you, and you don't want other people to be all in-your-face about it either. Got it, lazy.

I got news for you. This subject isn't simple, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The mere fact that you think you can explain your worldview in "10-15 lines" makes it reductionist and simplistic and not very useful, and insults everyone from the writers of Genesis to the modern Jesus study academics. Wake me when you've put in the effort.