Why should you? Nor should you love them. You owe it to yourself to try to find a way to diminish the pain, which you have likely done, and that is a state we can live in just as profitably and effectively as if one chose to pretend such things never happened.
I find THAT comment arrogant. I don't need any gods or religions, thank you very much. Why would you presume otherwise? Because your religion taught it to you? Nothing about that deserves the description arrogant. Saying it is is a self-serving, Abrahamic sentiment that runs through all of those religions, and intends to induce fear and insecurity about leaving the religion and living as an atheistic humanist. Isn't atheism always defined as arrogance by such believers? It's depicted as man trying to be a god, or trying to avoid a god to go live a sinful existence.
A miracle should have a zero percent chance of occurring naturally, not a very low one. If that's your only criterion for a miracle, why call them that? Those happen every day.
It adds up to me. It describes a deity that is indifferent to creating souls that will suffer and is part of the argument that the Abrahamic god as described is a monster. Who does that? People today are refusing to have children because they foresee a dystopic future for them. That's how compassionate moral agents think.
Agreed.
That pretty much sums up this atheistic humanist's position, except I leave gods out of it. The word carries the unwanted baggage of an invisible, powerful person while adding no explanatory or predictive power. And what does one need with religions to create a "heavenly state"? One just needs a safe and comfortable place to live, love, beauty, leisure, and freedom from want, anxiety, fear, shame, guilt, etc..
Yes I do know spiritual, sentience, thought, and feeling, but why call those God? Those words are sufficient to describe those experiences.
It's what I want, too. The critical thinker doesn't want anything to be true. He is interested in discovering what is true. And he has a very effective method for screening out false and unfalsifiable beliefs. He requires that an idea be shown to be correct empirically before belief. And this is vexatious to the faith-based thinker, whose criteria for belief seem to be just the will to believe - the definition of belief by faith.
Accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs. It sounds like a pretty bad idea. Faith is not only the path to theism, it's the path to climate denial, vaccine avoidance, legitimate election denial.
Here's another description of what the faith-based thinker says the critical thinker needs to do - join him and become a faith-based thinker, too. Opening eyes is your choice of language, but others call the critical thinker's perspective myopic, scientism, and materialism - all meant derogatorily. They say that one must stop thinking critically (not in those words) and God appears.
As a boy, before I learned such thinking, I was an atheist. I didn't become a theist until age 18 or 19. I tried what you recommend then. No bueno. I returned to atheism, and have been grateful for that ever since. Not everybody can do it, just as many never quit smoking. I've quit both, and neither was easier than the other. The religious mems had taken root in an unseen part of my mind that had me praying to a god I no longer believed in to show me a sign if I was making a mistake - for a year. It was just like the tobacco addiction, which also nagged at me for a year when I became the tobacco equivalent of an atheist.
What makes you think that that life is appealing or desirable? Do you think that believers present an enviable state to be in for holding such ideas? How would it help me to imagine I'm hearing a god speaking again? Did you want me to follow that voice's urgings again? As I said, I've been there, and it didn't work out well. I've learned better since. Also as I said, I'm proud and grateful to have extricated myself from that.
Nor need he to reject the claim. You're quibbling over what looks like a claim of faith that gods don't exist from
@blü 2. I think he used language casually there, but maybe he's a strong atheist. If so, I agree that that requires at least a small leap of faith.
The atheist need define no gods. You say that you see and hear one? Tell me what you see and hear, and I'll tell you if I believe YOUR god exists. Likewise with every other theist. Tell me about the god or gods you believe exist and I'll tell you if your argument was convincing or rejected.
A little dated now, but still clever:
A confused nine year old boy goes up to his mother and asks: "Is God male or female?"
After thinking for a moment, his mother responds: "Well, God is both male and female."
This confuses the little boy, so he asks: "Is God black or white?"
"Well, God is both black and white."
This further confuses the boy so he asks: "Is God gay or straight?"
The mother answers: "Honey, God is both gay and straight."
"Well then," the boy asks, "is god an adult or a child?"
The mother replies, "God is both adult and child. Why all of these questions?"
At this, the boy's face lights up with understanding and he triumphantly asks, "Is God Michael Jackson?"
