• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A couple of questions.

Nikodemus

Nikodemus

Heartstone
Was your decision to become an atheist based on the lack of evidence of God or on the strife rampant in the world or on the corruption in most of the world's major religious hierarchy? Or other of course.

And....

If it was based on lack of evidence, what do you say to people who tell you that one hundred and some odd years ago there was no way to see, feel, taste, touch, etc... germs or bacteria, but they are a fact.

This is not an attack. Not at all. I'm a very curious person as you will all get to know. I simply want to understand all points of view as much as possible.

Thanks.
 
L

Laremst

Newbie
My choice to be an Atheist was fueled by my disbelief in a Godlike figure, not much else to it. I was raised in a religiously sterile environment, so I guess that added to it.

And my answer to your second question is Half Life. It is an eternal clock that never stops, and can be traced to its beginning. That is how we know what things were like 100 years ago, and even further.

I could be wrong, but its my belief.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Nikodemus said:
Was your decision to become an atheist based on the lack of evidence of God or on the strife rampant in the world or on the corruption in most of the world's major religious hierarchy?
Click to expand...
It was/is based on the belief that there is insufficient warrant for an appeal to preternatural agency.

Nikodemus said:
If it was based on lack of evidence, what do you say to people who tell you that one hundred and some odd years ago there was no way to see, feel, taste, touch, etc... germs or bacteria, but they are a fact.
Click to expand...
I would tell them that they should therefore be sure to practice proper hygiene.

Nikodemus, I know you feel that your 2nd question is clever or, at the very least, suggestive, but you're sadly wrong. Yes, we've discovered things that were unknown and incomprehensible in the past. Yes, we may well discover things in the future that are today unknown and inconceivable. And. no, this does not support theism any more than it supports a belief in Mermaids or the Faerie Kingdom.
 
Nikodemus

Nikodemus

Heartstone
Jayhawker Soule said:
It was/is based on the belief that there is insufficient warrant for an appeal to preternatural agency.

I would tell them that they should therefore be sure to practice proper hygiene.

Nikodemus, I know you feel that your 2nd question is clever or, at the very least, suggestive, but you're sadly wrong. Yes, we've discovered things that were unknown and incomprehensible in the past. Yes, we may well discover things in the future that are today unknown and inconceivable. And. no, this does not support theism any more than it supports a belief in Mermaids or the Faerie Kingdom.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't support theism, if it supports anything at all it supports an open mind. That's it. For the record I don't believe in mermaids or the faerie kingdom, but I sure hope I'm wrong.
 
Nade

Nade

Godless Skeptic
My desire to completely destroy the great holy book of shama'lama ding-dong, a nefarious sect is bent on world domination. I hear they have done some discusting things, like sacrificing poor innocent animals, and stoning women to death, you know, for the high crime of going to the bathroom without permission. *brrr...*

All joking aside, I'm not exactly atheist in the typical sense of the word. A lot of my beliefs have no connection to atheism, and a lot of them actually don't add up to the atheist worldview. But I call myself athiest because that's the closest I can get to a word that everybody recognizes. I could say "post-floyd", but who the heck knows what THAT is!?

And my beliefs were formed by reflection.
 
stacey bo bacey

stacey bo bacey

oh no you di'int
It wasn't really a choice. My heart just kind of changed for some reason, can't explain it. And, like in any other situation, I followed my heart and this is where it took me. :D
 
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
Nikodemus said:
Was your decision to become an atheist based on the lack of evidence of God or on the strife rampant in the world or on the corruption in most of the world's major religious hierarchy? Or other of course.
Click to expand...

Lack of evidence. There were other supplementary reasons, secondary to the lack of evidence present, but have discarded these as they made assumptions about the nature of a God that I was refuting.

Nikodemus said:
And....

If it was based on lack of evidence, what do you say to people who tell you that one hundred and some odd years ago ...
Click to expand...

Because I am extremely anal and like to argue about the most insignificant of things:

Bacteria were first observed by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in 1676, using a single-lens microscope of his own design
Click to expand...
(Source, Wikipedia.)

Nikodemus said:
there was no way to see, feel, taste, touch, etc... germs or bacteria, but they are a fact.

This is not an attack. Not at all. I'm a very curious person as you will all get to know. I simply want to understand all points of view as much as possible.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

We can see bacteria, and can infer their presence through their interaction with other materials. If you wish to make a comparison with theism, please posit a method that would allow us to test for the presence of a God.
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Nikodemus said:
Was your decision to become an atheist based on the lack of evidence of God or on the strife rampant in the world or on the corruption in most of the world's major religious hierarchy? Or other of course.
Click to expand...
It was three things, 1. lack of evidence for God or soul, 2. Contrary evidence for big-bang and evolution, 3. UnGodly strife that religions created in the world.
 
Last edited:
lamplighter

lamplighter

Almighty Tallest
Nikodemus said:
Was your decision to become an atheist based on the lack of evidence of God or on the strife rampant in the world or on the corruption in most of the world's major religious hierarchy?
Click to expand...
I don't know, all three sound pretty good to me, you pick :D
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Nikodemus said:
Was your decision to become an atheist based on the lack of evidence of God or on the strife rampant in the world or on the corruption in most of the world's major religious hierarchy? Or other of course.
Click to expand...

A little bit of both, I suppose. But if I had to choose, it would be the sheer constatation that this world is far too imperfect to serve as evidence of a Maker. "Theodicy", I think this is the name of the classical argument.

But mostly, I just never was the sort of person who believes in God. It would be more fair to say that I declared myself an atheist than that I decided to become one.

And....

If it was based on lack of evidence, what do you say to people who tell you that one hundred and some odd years ago there was no way to see, feel, taste, touch, etc... germs or bacteria, but they are a fact.
Click to expand...

I just don't see the parallel. Besides, God supposedly has both the desire and the means for making himself known beyond any doubt. It is at best puzzling that he chooses not to.

Personally I realized quite some time ago that in the end it matters little whether God does exist or not. The world is what it is all the same. I don't really oppose belief in God, but I dislike the use of such a belief to renegate real responsibilities and matters. Belief in and of itself is quite legitimate.

This is not an attack. Not at all. I'm a very curious person as you will all get to know. I simply want to understand all points of view as much as possible.
Click to expand...

It did not sound like an attack. At all. :)
 
3.14

3.14

Well-Known Member
its no use to believe in god since if he does exist and he treats me diffrent because im an atheist he is a petty god and if he treats me all the same as any worshiper then whats the use of acknowlaging him
 
Nikodemus

Nikodemus

Heartstone
Women_Of_Reason said:
I don't get your point.
Click to expand...

Well take Ignaz Semmelweis for example. He wanted his staff to wash their hands before they operated on patients. He was locked in an asylum for his crazy ideas, because people at the time had no way to see, taste, touch, smell, etc...bacteria. So I wonder what people who became atheists because there is no proof of God say to people who say that just because there is no proof that we can measure now, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Nikodemus said:
Was your decision to become an atheist based on the lack of evidence of God or on the strife rampant in the world or on the corruption in most of the world's major religious hierarchy? Or other of course.
Click to expand...
Not exactly any, but mostly the first.

And....

If it was based on lack of evidence, what do you say to people who tell you that one hundred and some odd years ago there was no way to see, feel, taste, touch, etc... germs or bacteria, but they are a fact.

This is not an attack. Not at all. I'm a very curious person as you will all get to know. I simply want to understand all points of view as much as possible.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
A couple of thoughts. One is that a God is defined as something that can be seen, felt, tasted, etc. The other is that while there may be many things that we do not yet know, it would be foolish to believe in something now for which we have no evidence yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top