Why are you not an atheist?

[Shushersbedamned]

I'm not an atheist because I am slightly smarter than what is the recommendation nowadays.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I'm not an atheist because I think a better case can be made for theism than atheism.

You think a better case can be made for theism than atheism because you are not an atheist.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Nope, that's not the case. An atheist hasn't enough evidence to believe in any god. An agnostic views the evidence and isn't sure if they believe in any god.

There is no evidence whatsoever

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Its kinda unsetting to hear "Im glad Im not an atheist anymore." I know I dont believe in gods, but I wonder how my life is so bad to others as if godlessness means lost.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Its kinda unsetting to hear "Im glad Im not an atheist anymore." I know I dont believe in gods, but I wonder how my life is so bad to others as if godlessness means lost.

To a theist, the atheist seems to be lacking something. To an atheist, the theist seems to be burdened.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To a theist, the atheist seems to be lacking something. To an atheist, the theist seems to be burdened.

Hmm. I must not be a real atheist. Before RF, I get atheists are ignorant. To me, Ive been around theist so long that without god theyd be dead. Maybe both are ignorant. One to thinking life can only be tested to be real. The latter, they dont want to take in other views of truth but their own.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

To a theist, the atheist seems to be lacking something. To an atheist, the theist seems to be burdened.

Ah, duality is maya, the one reality is forever beyond relative opinions about it.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I'm not an atheist for many reasons, many of which I shared.

I've found peace and joy blending Catholicism, Buddhism, Shamanism, Shintoism, and Hindu Asceticism together.

I also watched documentaries where people give eye witness accounts of miraculous healings from a pilgrimage, eye witnesses of the vision at Fatima Portugal, and read about the medical Bureau at Lourdes which certifies miracles that are of an incurable disease, instantaneous healing, complete healing, and no medical or scientific explanation.

I've read testimonies from Doctor's and Scientists similar to what this scientist would say:
This Agnostic Scientist Converted After Witnessing a Miracle at Lourdes | ChurchPOP

"The alleged apparitions at Lourdes were reported to have taken place between 11 February and 16 July 1858. After this time, reports of apparently miraculous cures began to accumulate, prompting calls for the Roman Catholic Church to recognise these events as miracles. The earliest investigations of these cases were carried out by an Episcopal Commission of Inquiry led by Canon Germain Baradère and reporting directly to Mgr Laurence, bishop of Tarbes.

In 1859, Professor Henri Vergez from the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier was appointed medical consultant to the Episcopal Commission of Inquiry. Vergez's views were often at odds with those of his clerical colleagues. Vergez decided that only eight of the early cases were genuinely inexplicable.[1]

In 1883 a body called the Bureau des Constatations Médicales was established by doctors affiliated with the sanctuary. This was the forerunner of the current Medical Bureau. Its first titular head was the nobleman Baron Dunot de Saint-Maclou, and the Bureau was housed at the residence of the Garaison Fathers in Lourdes. Following the establishment of the Bureau des Constatations Médicales, the number of recognised cures dropped dramatically, from 143 in 1883 to only 83 in 1884.[2]

Dunot de Saint-Maclou died in 1891 and was succeeded by Dr. Gustave Boissarie who headed the Medical Bureau until 1914, and met with the French author Émile Zola when he visited Lourdes in August 1892. Dr. Bonamy, a character in Zola's 1894 novel Lourdes, is unflatteringly based on Boissarie. Boissarie wrote a celebrated book, L'Histoire Médicale de Lourdes in 1891, which was praised by Pope Leo XIII. Boissarie moved the offices of the Bureau to accommodation beneath the right ramp of the Upper Basilica, where he met with people who claimed to have been cured.[3]

In 1905, Pope Pius X decreed that claims of miraculous cures at Lourdes should "submit to a proper process", in other words, to be rigorously investigated. At his instigation, the current Lourdes Medical Bureau was formed.

In 2011, the cure of a French man is under further examination to determine officially whether another miraculous cure has taken place. Twenty doctors from the medical bureau have concluded that the formerly paralysed man's recovery, which occurred in 2002, was 'remarkable'
Lourdes Medical Bureau - Wikipedia

There's many other testimonies like that in modern history.

I believe Padre pio, 20th century stigmatic priest, Franciscan Friar, and canonized Saint, worked the miracles that are attributed to him:
The Most Unbelievable Miracles of St. Padre Pio

I suppose it could all be a work of fiction. I was not there.
I do indeed sympathize with atheists. There is a lot of religious hysteria and nonsense out there. God does a very poor job of shepherding and guiding his flock. There is a lot of corruption amongst religious people, and much scandal, deception, and atrocities. I'm very skeptic.

So, why am I not an atheist? The biggest reason is because I was miserable and hopeless as an atheist. I gave up on life, didn't feel equipped to care for myself without a supernatural guide, and attempted suicide, breaking multiple bones and winding up in a wheelchair for 10 weeks, and fortunate to not be paralyzed for life.

If I was an atheist, I would not only be suicidal again, but would be more selfish. For instance, there were many times I wanted to tell a lie, wanted to abuse drugs, wanted to steal etc. but I didn't because I had the inner conviction that it would offend God, and the supernatural spirits that I'm devoted to, as well as harm my soul.

I also have done a lot of volunteer work at missions in the ghetto, feeding the hungry and giving clothing and what not to the needy, as a result of my inner convictions. I have given away money and other items, because of my belief that it was pleasing to supernatural entities.

One big reason I'm not an atheist is because prayer for me has been sometimes euphoric, blissful, peaceful, joyful, and transforming. I have often felt like other spirits were influencing my thoughts, words, and emotions...the happiest day of my life was march 19 2018, and nothing good happened that day externally. The joy and euphoria was entirely grace and spiritual ecstasy received through prayer.

It could all be BS, and simply endorphins and dopamine being released in the brain...of course I am skeptic, but I found what makes me happy. If I am mistaken about the existence of Heavenly beings, once I'm dead, I won't regret the time spent in prayer or being mistaken.

And maybe...just maybe, there will be reward on the other side...

So, why aren't you an atheist?

On the chance that God is real, I rather not make him angry by saying that he doesn't exist. I've been ignored in my life as well and I know how that feels.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not just to me, too vague to be of any use to anyone. I too am a Messenger of God by those low standards:

Not unless you have an important mission and wrote 15,000 Tablets. There is nothing vague about the mission of Baha’u’llah or what is in His Tablets.

Of course you have to read them in order to know that.

Just stating something to be evidence does not make it evidence.

Of course not, but conversely, just stating something is not evidence does not mean it is not evidence.

You keep putting your messenger in Bobby Henderson territory. What do you have against Bobby anyway?

I do not even know who he is but unless he has an important mission and wrote 15,000 Tablets he is not in the same category.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not unless you have an important mission and wrote 15,000 Tablets. There is nothing vague about the mission of Baha’u’llah or what is in His Tablets.

Of course you have to read them in order to know that.

Of course not, but conversely, just stating something is not evidence does not mean it is not evidence.

I do not even know who he is but unless he has an important mission and wrote 15,000 Tablets he is not in the same category.

Sorry,. but the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. There is no need to drink the Kool-Aid to judge a religion.

I should be a bit clearer on evidence. What you have provided is not reliable evidence. Reliable evidence does not depend upon either source or target. Your "evidence" only convinces those that already believe. That is merely confirmation bias.

If you have reliable evidence you should post it. Overly vague prophecies are failed prophecies and are not reliable evidence.

Bobby Henderson wrote the Pastafarian Bible. I don't know if that counts as "tablets". I don't know why anyone would decide to write on tiny pills or why he would think that would convince anyone:

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry,. but the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. There is no need to drink the Kool-Aid to judge a religion.

I am not making a claim. Baha'u'llah made the claim. I just believe His claim.

I should be a bit clearer on evidence. What you have provided is not reliable evidence. Reliable evidence does not depend upon either source or target. Your "evidence" only convinces those that already believe. That is merely confirmation bias.

No, my evidence is what convinced people to believe. They did not believe before looking at the evidence.

If you have reliable evidence you should post it. Overly vague prophecies are failed prophecies and are not reliable evidence.

As I told you some time ago, it is not my job to convince anyone what to believe. Everyone is responsible to look at the evidence and evaluate it for themselves, if they are interested in the religion. The faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not making a claim. Baha'u'llah made the claim. I just believe His claim.

This is a dodge on your part and you are usually better than this.

No, my evidence is what convinced people to believe. They did not believe before looking at the evidence.

I was once talking about evidence for rational thinkers. Irrational people will believe almost anything.

As I told you some time ago, it is not my job to convince anyone what to believe. Everyone is responsible to look at the evidence and evaluate it for themselves, if they are interested in the religion. The faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself.

If you are going to be making claims on public forums it is, otherwise you could admit that you are making it all up as you go along.

It appears that the founder of your religion did not value honesty.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a dodge on your part and you are usually better than this.

The burden of proof is on the person who wants to believe something. It is not my responsibility to prove anything to anyone.

If you are going to be making claims on public forums it is, otherwise you could admit that you are making it all up as you go along.

It appears that the founder of your religion did not value honesty.

I have a belief. Why is it my responsibility to convince others of my belief?
The founder of my religion valued independent investigation of truth above all else. That means nobody investigates for anyone else. We all have to do our own homework.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.

 

[paarsurrey]

Its kinda unsetting to hear "Im glad Im not an atheist anymore." I know I dont believe in gods, but I wonder how my life is so bad to others as if godlessness means lost.

No, one could remain in Atheism with or without reasons and arguments, it is one's prerogative, there is no dearth of people in the believers. There could be good people in Atheism, no denying Be happy, please.
Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, one could remain in Atheism with or without reasons and arguments, it is one's prerogative, there is no dearth of people in the believers. There could be good people in Atheism, no denying Be happy, please.
Regards

I understans what you say. How is it ones perogative? I can kinda see how atheist become theist. Maybe they feel they were blind. So, it wasnt disbelief in gods, but ignorance to them. I dont see how a theist can be atheist unless he realize he believed in a lie.

 

[paarsurrey]

I understans what you say. How is it ones perogative? I can kinda see how atheist become theist. Maybe they feel they were blind. So, it wasnt disbelief in gods, but ignorance to them. I dont see how a theist can be atheist unless he realize he believed in a lie.

Every human being is a free soul, it is his choice to have any ideology or world view or religion or no-religion. He could have any reasons or arguments for them he wants to share with others, there are others who don't prefer to share any such reasons. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Every human being is a free soul, it is his choice to have any ideology or world view or religion or no-religion. He could have any reasons or arguments for them he wants to share with others, there are others who don't prefer to share any such reasons. Right, please?

Regards

Atheism is no more a theology, world view, or idiology as adnormal is to normal, amoral is to moral, arrhythmia to rythmic.

If someone was amoral, the only way I can think of them becoming moral is maybe learning and being taught in a way congruint to ones environment. If an moral person wanted to be amoral, does he just toss his morals aside as if they were lies? (Edit)

I cant hit a note in a bucket; so, Im arrythmic. I can be taught how to sing (etc) how to be rythmic. If Im already rhythmic, unless I mess with my voice on purpose (or catch a cold) I dont see how I can become arrythmic again.

Same works for atheism.

I can see how an atheist become theist, probably because of some kind of revelation (something you cannot choose). I dont see how a theist can be an atheist unless he found out (which he cant choose) what he believed were lies.

 

[Cobol]

Is there a logical reason to believe in one's own life/existence? Please
Regards

The logical evidence you have that you exist as a self-aware being is your conscious experience
of thinking about your existence.

 

[paarsurrey]

The logical evidence you have that you exist as a self-aware being is your conscious experience
of thinking about your existence.

I asked the question the logical reason of existence of the poster Cobol, please. Right, please? Please present it in first person, if one want to answer. No compulsion,however.
Regards

 

[QuestioningMind]

There is no evidence whatsoever

That's your opinion... one I happen to agree with. But there are agnostics out there who would disagree with us.