Athiests and Agnostics, your decisive moment

[Sabour]

You seem to expect people to have both a reason and a moment for "becoming" atheistic. That is an odd notion to have, in my opinion. Atheism is simply so natural.

I am not sure of the latter. But the first, Yes I would expect a reason.

What you are saying is that existence is natural laws exist, and that you understand as evidence of a Creator God?

Yep all this can't exist from none.

I truly think that is just an esthetical inclination of yours.

I am not that shallow

That may be a belief you feel the urge to hold for whatever reason, but there is no need for an explanation for "things", at least that I am aware of, so your stance is a bit puzzling to me.

I think you are underestimating things.

It may be very well-meaning for certain people, particularly if they have been told from a young age that it is so. But it is not truly respectful, far as I can understand it.

I don't blindly follow

 

[Sabour]

I guess I will never understand why people expect to find truth as opposed to inspiration in such books.

In inspirations you would see errors.

 

[Sabour]

Also to consider
is that many who rejected supernatural explanations did so when they matured.

I think this is because they didn't find the true explanation. Maybe they looked in the wrong place. Here it is where comes most of athiests/agnostics... I guess.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not sure of the latter. But the first, Yes I would expect a reason.

I never needed a reason to be an atheist.
But I would need one to believe in the supernatural.
No compelling reason has presented itself to me.

Yep all this can't exist from none.

Cannot it simply exist as it does?
Who is to say it all came from nothing?
And what is to prevent it from coming from nothing?

 

[Sabour]

No, you're twisting things here. There was no teaching of anything at all, they just simply left me to my own devices. If a kid goes to school and you don't teach him math, you are not teaching him how not to learn math.

Nope the case is a bit different. The subject we are talking about is not tangible. It is about beliefs. Not believing is a belief. Not teaching a belief is teaching not to believe.

I did test the theory according to the bible (faith) and it didn't work out or make sense. Whether it works that way for everyone is another story, but for me that's they way it turned out and I am left with my present conclusions as a result.

I do agree on that part.

 

[Sabour]

I never needed a reason to be an atheist.
But I would need one to believe in the supernatural.
No compelling reason has presented itself to me.

What are your standards for that reason? Did I already ask you that?

Cannot it simply exist as it does?
Who is to say it all came from nothing?
And what is to prevent it from coming from nothing?

Because universe had a start. What has a start has a cause.

Something can't exist and not exist at the same time. So universe didn't create it self

 

[Revoltingest]

What are your standards for that reason? Did I already ask you that?

You haven't asked yet. I've no set standards which the supernatural must meet.

Because universe had a start.

It's not known that the Big Bang was the start of all that exists.
It just appears to be the start of the universe we observe.
There could be much much more going on.
Who is to say that the Big Bang isn't just an infinitesimal part of more, eg, a universe of infinitely many universes?

What has a start has a cause.

This is a reasonable premise, but not cast in concrete.

Something can't exist and not exist at the same time. So universe didn't create it self

I don't propose the logically problematic simultaneous existence & non-existence.

 

[columbus]

In inspirations you would see errors.

I do see the errors in inspirations. They're rife with them. That is how I figured out that humans don't know anything important about God.

The main thing prophets have in common is being humans.

Tom

 

[Alceste]

I think this is because they didn't find the true explanation. Maybe they looked in the wrong place. Here it is where comes most of athiests/agnostics... I guess.

Not everyone is looking for supernatural explanations for things. I never was. It's not in my nature. I am aware of only one compelling reason for belief in anything, and that is evidence.

Belief based on authority, popularity, or someone's claim that God touched them and tasked them with writing her thoughts down all have serious logical problems, which means I can not use any of them as a basis for belief.

I arrive at belief by starting with no opinion, looking at the available evidence, then drawing a reasonable conclusion. That is the only process I use, and has been since I was a small child. There was no "moment" that made me this way, except perhaps the moment of my conception.

 

[Alceste]

What are your standards for that reason? Did I already ask you that?



Because universe had a start. What has a start has a cause.

Something can't exist and not exist at the same time. So universe didn't create it self

I don't believe you know enough about the universe to draw those conclusions. I don't either, but I'm content to wait for physicists to work out what causes universes to be born. It's fascinating to me.

 

[Sabour]

You haven't asked yet. I've no set standards which the supernatural must meet.

So do you consider a book which has all explanations needed with no errors do?

It's not known that the Big Bang was the start of all that exists.
It just appears to be the start of the universe we observe.
There could be much much more going on.
Who is to say that the Big Bang isn't just an infinitesimal part of more, eg, a universe of infinitely many universes?

Well in that sense, what started that universe or infinite universes.

 

[Sabour]

The main thing prophets have in common is being humans.

And a message to share. And miracles that people would believe they are actually prophets and there is God.

 

[Sabour]

Not everyone is looking for supernatural explanations for things. I never was. It's not in my nature. I am aware of only one compelling reason for belief in anything, and that is evidence.

What about the reason for our existence? You believe that we live and we die and that is it ?

Belief based on authority, popularity, or someone's claim that God touched them and tasked them with writing her thoughts down all have serious logical problems, which means I can not use any of them as a basis for belief.

It is logical. God wanted to deliver to pass us a message. He chose to do it through prophets.

I arrive at belief by starting with no opinion, looking at the available evidence, then drawing a reasonable conclusion. That is the only process I use, and has been since I was a small child. There was no "moment" that made me this way, except perhaps the moment of my conception.

In that case would you consider the evidence I would suggest?

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not sure of the latter. But the first, Yes I would expect a reason.

Atheism does not need a reason beyond "I don't really believe there are deities".

Yep all this can't exist from none.

(...)

I am not that shallow

Belief in God is your legitimate privilege and it should be respected as such.

I just feel that you will keep being disappointed if you expect everyone else to reach the same conclusion - or even to have a reason not to.

 

[Sabour]

I don't believe you know enough about the universe to draw those conclusions. I don't either, but I'm content to wait for physicists to work out what causes universes to be born. It's fascinating to me.

I don't think it will be worth the wait. Because what ever they would find, they would say well actually this may be the cause of this and that doesn't necessarily mean that God exists.

 

[Sabour]

Atheism does not need a reason beyond "I don't really believe there are deities".




Belief in God is your legitimate privilege and it should be respected as such.

I just feel that you will keep being disappointed if you expect everyone else to reach the same conclusion - or even to have a reason not to.

I am not disappointed neither I expect everyone to reach the same conclusion.

 

[Mister_T]

Nope the case is a bit different. The subject we are talking about is not tangible. It is about beliefs. Not believing is a belief. Not teaching a belief is teaching not to believe.

Leaving someone to discover things for themselves is not teaching anyone anything. It is self-discovery. Maybe that's not the answer you want, but moving the goal posts to get your desired answer isn't going to change the facts.

I do agree on that part.

Good to see.

 

[Sabour]

Leaving someone to discover things for themselves is not teaching anyone anything. It is self-discovery. Maybe that's not the answer you want, but moving the goal posts to get your desired answer isn't going to change the facts.

That is not my intention neither, I don't build my conversation on something which isn't shared.

My point was is that children get influenced by parents no matter how they didn't want to interfere.

Anyways never mind

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

Hello Guys.

I had a question in mind for atheists and agnostics.

It is said that if a child left to grow alone with his set of beliefs, he would grow up to believe in the existence of God.

In addition, most of your parents weren't atheists nor agnostics.

So my question is, what are the things that made you become atheist/agnostic.

The very first moment that you have decided on this subject, what was before that?

Appreciate your responses.

I was brought up by muslim parents.
But I never really believed even from a young age as I've always been analytical. I would always ask my parents questions and would never recieve satisfactory answers. Then in my early twenty when the Internet started taking off I started researching Islam and came across websites claiming how the Koran contains miracles. My naivety and gullibility as well as my ignorance led me to believe all these claims were true and I soon was convinced and became a practising muslim. Shortly afterwards I started debating on religious forums thinking I must share this with everyone, but I was soon put in my place by others who knew about all these lies concerning miracles in the Koran.
I then started doing my own research reading the Koran, tasfirs and hadeeths which confirmed to me that I had been fooled!
I then learnt that many of these so called miracles were actually errors (as with the 20 miracles you mention in your thread) and having studied mythology realised the Koran was full of them (myths) and unsurprisingly called them signs!!

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess I will never understand why people expect to find truth as opposed to inspiration in such books.

In inspirations you would see errors.

And you should be wary of the errors present in believers' sincere faith as well, so I don't see any downsides.

Also to consider
is that many who rejected supernatural explanations did so when they matured.

I think this is because they didn't find the true explanation. Maybe they looked in the wrong place. Here it is where comes most of athiests/agnostics... I guess.

Do you realize that this amounts to simply wanting to know better than the people themselves, on a matter that is so very personal?

Or maybe you do not agree that such is the case? I would like to know why, if you do not.

Nope the case is a bit different. The subject we are talking about is not tangible. It is about beliefs. Not believing is a belief. Not teaching a belief is teaching not to believe.

That is a puzzling statement to behold. I wonder if you are aware of how free to learn about faiths (particularly Christianity, but definitely many others as well) Mr. T would be.

Cannot it simply exist as it does?
Who is to say it all came from nothing?
And what is to prevent it from coming from nothing?

Because universe had a start. What has a start has a cause.

Something can't exist and not exist at the same time. So universe didn't create it self

How do you know that there was a start, or a cause for such a hypothetical start?

How could anyone truly know?

Even if we did, aren't you in essence claiming that God is a special exception just because? If he can be such an exception, why can't we cut the middledeity and make such a claim of exception the existence itself?

The main thing prophets have in common is being humans.

And a message to share. And miracles that people would believe they are actually prophets and there is God.

Problem is, there is no particularly coherent message, and miracles are neither reliable nor convincing in a religious sense.

In fact, they are not supposed to be, IMO.

As for convincing people that there is God, that is even more questionable.

Why would God want people to believe yet not make it so? Why resort to hiding himself only to them make a point of expecting belief?

Isn't the very existence of atheists evidence that there is no particular need to believe?

And if God does nonetheless exist and want to be acknowledged, how come it is all but impossible to reach an agreement about even the basics of what he wants, or what he is like?

What about the reason for our existence? You believe that we live and we die and that is it ?

(I realize that I was not the person being asked, but anyway...)

Of course not. There is also making something worth with the time while we exist.

That involves mainly caring for the legacy we inherit from others, both deceased and living, and passing it forward and drawing purpose from it.

It is logical. God wanted to deliver to pass us a message. He chose to do it through prophets.

On the contrary, logic indicates that such a thing did not happen, since the evidence is overwhelming that religious teachings are a human creation and to a considerable degree dependent on culture.

In that case would you consider the evidence I would suggest?

My experience mirrors his, and I must say that I don't remember you presenting anything new, nor convincing.

Then again, why even attempt to? It is not like it is important for any of us to believe in God except perhaps out of personal need.