How can anyone be an atheist?

[Nimos]

I watch the atheist experience occasionally and ran into this one, with a women wondering how anyone can be an atheist?

What I would be interested in asking you, especially religious people is, do the explanation given by the hosts makes sense to you? And if not can you give a time (like 1:20) to where you think they are wrong and why you think it is a bad or a wrong argument?

 

[Estro Felino]

Very interesting debate.
I loved the arguments of the younger man...and of course the theist person had good arguments too.

Just one thing: the second part focused on afterlife and there is just one thing I do not understand: why should the non-existence of God imply the non-existence of the soul (and the afterlife)?
They are so independent from one another, as concepts. We are products of evolution...but you know... even animals can have soul.
There is no correlation between the soul and God so I do not understand why one is considered a logical consequence of the other.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I think the woman was drunk!
At 16:03, it’s obvious she wasn’t following Matt’s straight-forward reasoning. Inaccurate, but still straightforward.

Her arguments were weak! Nothing but emotion-based (which happens when you’ve been drinking).

 

[SomeRandom]

I must be a very bad theist. I never really question why a person is an atheist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I must be a very bad theist. I never really question why a person is an atheist.

You're used to us. You know we're just people, for better or worse.
To some people around the world we are like some exotic species they've never seen, so it's almost understandable that they don't quite get us.

I'm always more than happy to answer questions to the best of my ability because if that.

 

[SomeRandom]

You're used to us. You know we're just people, for better or worse.
To some people around the world we are like some exotic species they've never seen, so it's almost understandable that they don't quite get us.

I'm always more than happy to answer questions to the best of my ability because if that.

Perhaps that’s true. I did essentially grow up on a lot of atheist “media.” Podcasts and YouTube videos and such.
Although most of my friends and family are “casually” Christian, if that makes sense?

But I think it’s largely due to the “everyone has their own unique path” instilled in me from my own religious traditions. Hindus usually go out of their way to mind their own business, lest they be perceived as “rude.”

 

[PureX]

What I would be interested in asking you, especially religious people is, do the explanation given by the hosts makes sense to you? And if not can you give a time (like 1:20) to where you think they are wrong and why you think it is a bad or a wrong argument?

He doesn't seem to grasp, even remotely, the concept of FAITH, and why people need it, or how it helps people function in a significant way, in their lives. All he talks about is the lack of material evidence for the conceptual icon he had in his brain, labeled "God".

The real problem here is that he grew up in a religion that touted belief in a conceptual religious icon, instead of faith in a great and inexplicable mystery. So he thinks he is an atheist, now, because he rejected belief in the religious conceptual icon he was taught to call "God", when in reality he has never had nor developed a realistic, functional, concept of God. Nor has he ever placed his faith in that concept to discover how faith in the reality of God, helps people. If we asked this "atheist" if love is real, and if trusting in love helps people live better lives, he would certainly agree that it is and it would. And yet this man obviously has made no connection between God, and love. Or God and beauty. Or God and justice. Or God and individual purpose. And why hasn't he? Because the idiotic religion he was raised in only taught him that God is a religious icon, and a religious story, in a religious book. So for him, God was never made real. And the moment he tested that God, it became apparent to him that it wasn't real. And now he thinks he's an atheist. When all he is, is just ignorant of the reality of God, thanks to a religious experience that taught him to "believe in" a religious fictional story of God as if it were the reality of God.

And this s the case with the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists these days. The truth is they never had any idea how God can be real to us, because religions are so woefully inept at teaching people how to recognize the reality of God in their lives. They're too busy, instead, trying to make people "believe in" the trappings and icons and dogmas of the religion.

 

[Nimos]

He doesn't seem to grasp, even remotely, the concept of FAITH, and why people need it, or how it helps people function in a significant way, in their lives. All he talks about is the lack of material evidence for the conceptual icon he had in his brain, labeled "God".

The real problem here is that he grew up in a religion that touted belief in a conceptual religious icon, instead of faith in a great and inexplicable mystery. So he thinks he is an atheist, now, because he rejected belief in the religious conceptual icon he was taught to call "God", when in reality he has never had nor developed a realistic, functional, concept of God. Nor has he ever placed his faith in that concept to discover how faith in the reality of God, helps people. If we asked this "atheist" if love is real, and if trusting in love helps people live better lives, he would certainly agree that it is and it would. And yet this man obviously has made no connection between God, and love. Or God and beauty. Or God and justice. Or God and individual purpose. And why hasn't he? Because the idiotic religion he was raised in only taught him that God is a religious icon, and a religious story, in a religious book. So for him, God was never made real. And the moment he tested that God, it became apparent to him that it wasn't real. And now he thinks he's an atheist. When all he is, is just ignorant of the reality of God, thanks to a religious experience that taught him to "believe in" a religious fictional story of God as if it were the reality of God.

And this s the case with the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists these days. The truth is they never had any idea how God can be real to us, because religions are so woefully inept at teaching people how to recognize the reality of God in their lives. They're too busy, instead, trying to make people "believe in" the trappings and icons and dogmas of the religion.

Ok thanks

Just to be clear, so you think that all his arguments are bad or untrustworthy, because he never understood or got to experience what God really is, because he were raised in a "bad" form of Christianity? So he is not a "real" atheist, but just think he is because he was taught the wrong teachings about God, and this is basically true for most atheists? Does that sum it up somewhat correctly?

 

[Nimos]

Very interesting debate.
I loved the arguments of the younger man...and of course the theist person had good arguments too.

Just one thing: the second part focused on afterlife and there is just one thing I do not understand: why should the non-existence of God imply the non-existence of the soul (and the afterlife)?
They are so independent from one another, as concepts. We are products of evolution...but you know... even animals can have soul.
There is no correlation between the soul and God so I do not understand why one is considered a logical consequence of the other.

His point is that we have no evidence for there being a soul. And usually the believe in souls are something that is closely connected to that of a religious view, which in many cases include the believe in a God.

 

[Nimos]

I think the woman was drunk!
At 16:03, it’s obvious she wasn’t following Matt’s straight-forward reasoning.

Her arguments were weak! Nothing but emotion-based (which happens when you’ve been drinking).

I would disagree with that.

I can see how she could assume that, he say that due to some religions promise of the afterlife, make it so people walk around with the idea that they can always make up for the things that the didn't do in this life, in the afterlife. Which according to him, makes it so you might treat people differently compared to if you lived your life as if there weren't an afterlife, because in that case you should focus on treating them better in this life rather than having the option of making up for it in the afterlife, because whatever feelings you might have for another person that you find is important for them to know about, need to be said in this life and not in the afterlife. But in the case that there happen to be an afterlife, then that is just a bonus.

She then understood it, as him indicating that she didn't treat her sister good. Which is not what he is saying.

Basically it is just about where you focus your effort, if there is no afterlife you have to do it in this life and get the most out of it etc. but if you believe in an afterlife, you sort of have a "get out of jail" card, because you will basically have an eternity to express your feelings, if you believe that you will ultimately meet up with your love ones later.

 

[PureX]

Ok thanks

Just to be clear, so you think that all his arguments are bad or untrustworthy, because he never understood or got to experience what God really is, because he were raised in a "bad" form of Christianity? So he is not an "real" atheist, but just think he is because he was taught the wrong teachings about God, and this is basically true for most atheists? Does that sum it up somewhat correctly?

His arguments are't "bad or untrustworthy". They are reasonable given what he was taught to "believe" that God is. The problem is that what he was taught to "believe" God is, was nothing more than a collection of religious stories, icons, and dogmas. None of which were real to him beyond childhood. So when he grew up, and could discern fact from fiction, all God was to him was a religious fiction. So when he stopped "believing in" the fiction, as any adult should, he stopped "believing in" God.

But the truth is that he has never understood theism as 'faith in God'. Not the God of any religion, but God as that universal existential mystery, within which is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, including ourselves. And from which come the amazing gifts of life, and love, and beauty, and kindness, and forgiveness, and generosity. The gifts that make our existence worth the struggle. And that give our lives value and purpose.

 

[Yerda]

And this s the case with the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists these days.

Would your characterisation not also apply to the vast majority of theists?

 

[Nimos]

His arguments are't "bad or untrustworthy". They are reasonable given what he was taught to "believe" that God is. The problem is that what he was taught to "believe" God is, was nothing more than a collection of religious stories, icons, and dogmas. None of which were real to him beyond childhood. So when he grew up, and could discern fact from fiction, all God was to him was a religious fiction. So when he stopped "believing in" the fiction, as any adult should, he stopped "believing in" God.

But the truth is that he has never understood theism as 'faith in God'. Not the God of any religion, but God as that universal existential mystery, within which is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, including ourselves. And from which come the amazing gifts of life, and love, and beauty, and kindness, and forgiveness, and generosity. The gifts that make our existence worth the struggle. And that give our lives value and purpose.

I don't know how well you know him, but he was originally going to become a priest, because he believed that God wanted him to, so he was very much into the whole religious thing to begin with. He used to believe in all what you have written here, according to himself.

 

[PureX]

Would your characterisation not also apply to the vast majority of theists?

A lot of theists fail to differentiate between "belief in" the icons of the gods and faith in the reality of God in their lives. But I think most of them do recognize the reality of God manifesting in their experience of life (as love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, beauty, fairness, etc.). Unfortunately, religions often do not focus on these divine gifts, and instead focus on control, and adherence, because those empower the religion, as opposed to streangthening people's faith.

 

[PureX]

I don't know how well you know him, but he was originally going to become a priest, because he believed that God wanted him to, so he was very much into the whole religious thing to begin with. He used to believe in all what you have written here, according to himself.

Nothing he is saying in this video indicates to me that God has ever been anything more than a religious icon to him. An icon that he tried very hard to "believe in" (to believe was real) because that's what he was taught to do.

I think you're trying so hard to support him that you're missing the truth, here. And the truth is that religions aren't gods. When you reject religion, you are not rejecting God. In fact, you may well still have no idea what God is.

 

[Nimos]

Nothing he is saying in this video indicates to me that God has ever been anything more than a religious icon to him. An icon that he tried very hard to "believe in" (to believe was real) because that's what he was taught to do.

I think you're trying so hard to support him that you're missing the truth, here. And the truth is that religions aren't gods. When you reject religion, you are not rejecting God. In fact, you may well still have no idea what God is.

Im not particular trying to support him, I just wanted to let you know, if you didn't know it.

And don't worry, from what I have seen, it's very common that religious people, claim to have the authority to say that he was never a true Christian or believer to begin with, which pisses him off.

 

[Revoltingest]

I must be a very bad theist. I never really question why a person is an atheist.

I skipped the video. Atheism is so simple that I cannot
imagine how a video would shed any light upon it.
I was born not believing in or even knowing of gods.
When I was first told of God, I found the idea ridiculous.
Being an atheist came as naturally as breathing.

 

[Nimos]

I skipped the video. Atheism is so simple that I cannot
imagine how a video would shed any light upon it.
I was born not believing in or even knowing of gods.
When I was first told of God, I found the idea ridiculous.
Being an atheist came as naturally as breathing.

Well apparently not everyone think that is the case, so to me it's interesting and useful to know how they view it.

 

[Estro Felino]

His point is that we have no evidence for there being a soul. And usually the believe in souls are something that is closely connected to that of a religious view, which in many cases include the believe in a God.

Exactly.
But this has nothing to do with Atheism.
It has to do with Agnosticism.

A Italian philologist said : there is no evidence either that the soul exists or that it doesn't .

 

[Revoltingest]

Well apparently not everyone think that is the case, so to me it's interesting and useful to know how they view it.

That's understandable.
I know others who led different paths to godlessness.