Why Are You Not an Atheist?

[Audie]

This is what I meant. You had no idea what I stated, so you conveyed your opinion or belief that it is nonsense to cover up your ignorance of what it meant.

Ok, i cant have a conversation with someone who
is out to make things up so as to be insulting.

Bye.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

 

[leroy]

Why indeed, to the first, but we being so far less than
ants to such a god, the Love that he programmed into us
to have for him.... you know? An odd, weird really,
thing to want. Make tiny things in such a way that they
will "love" him?

On innate predisposition, did you see what I wrote?
Try again, svp. While you are at it, why the inante
predisposition to drug abuse? Violence?

Drugs are usually intelligently design to be addictive. I don’t see your point.


If God doesn’t exist why do we have this predisposition? (you haven’t answered)

 

[Vee]

I'm not trying to imply that there are no reason for being a theist.
And I think we've discussed often enough atheist's reason for being an atheist. However I'd be happy to explain for myself why.

I'm just curious what folks feel justifies their theism. What knowledge a person personally has to justify a belief in God.

Because the universe is simply too well done to have appeared by chance. Because everywhere I look I see purpose and intelligence and proof of careful planning. Because nature is full of connections that can't have appeared out of the blue for no reason other than blind chance. I don't believe in myriads of lucky coincidences coming together to create something great and life in all it's forms is so amazing that the word "great" doesn't do it any justice.

 

[Quintessence]

I am not an atheist because I find the case for theism to be more compelling.

That too.

 

[Apologes]

Oh? Could you share what basis you find?

I find a fair number of arguments from Natural Theology to be more probable than the objections to them.

By contrast, I haven't seen a persuasive argument for atheism.

Given how I also hold to reformed epistemology, in the absence of a defeater like that I see no reason to quit believing a view developed by my reliable cognitive faculties.

Touching on reliability of cognitive faculties, I take the strongest form of atheism (metaphysical naturalism) to be at a much greater risk of leading to global skepticism than theism and so I take theism to be a more plausible view if I wish to maintain my assumption that my faculties are working properly.

Very roughly stated, those would be my basic reasons for not being an atheist, but a theist instead.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Why am I not an atheist? Probably because I'm not fool enough to believe you can prove the non-existence of anything, even gods. Also because I've had direct experience of the gods. But even if I hadn't, it would be very arrogant to deny the experiences of millions of others.

 

[Audie]

Drugs are usually intelligently design to be addictive. I don’t see your point.


If God doesn’t exist why do we have this predisposition? (you haven’t answered)

There is an innate predisposition to drug addiction,
whether a specific drug is "intelligently" (by who?)
or not.

There is an innate tendency toward violence.

I am pretty sure I said I dont know why
there would be an (apparent) predisposition to
believe in "god", or, to violence, or drug addiction,
for that matter.


We like puppies, probably because they trigger our
innate love for babies.

As babies, we have innate love for our parents.
The all powerful givers of life.

My guess is that the search for a "god" to fill that role
is, just that. The search, as an adult, for something
to fill the role t hat parents had.

Seems more likely than that there is a thing that is
greater than the universe, exists outside of time and
spacer, knows everything and can do anything.

Just my pov, if you are interested. If you want to see
the innate behaviours of people to be signs of god
thats fine.

 

[Audie]

I find a fair number of arguments from Natural Theology to be more probable than the objections to them.

By contrast, I haven't seen a persuasive argument for atheism.

Given how I also hold to reformed epistemology, in the absence of a defeater like that I see no reason to quit believing a view developed by my reliable cognitive faculties.

Touching on reliability of cognitive faculties, I take the strongest form of atheism (metaphysical naturalism) to be at a much greater risk of leading to global skepticism than theism and so I take theism to be a more plausible view if I wish to maintain my assumption that my faculties are working properly.

Very roughly stated, those would be my basic reasons for not being an atheist, but a theist instead.

Global skepticism?

I guess my pov is simpler. There is no way to detect
the presence of any god. It seems to me that any and
all proposed gods have that in common that they have
all the same characteristics as divers cryptozoolical
creatures, that is, all the characteristics of something
that does not exist.

Being a god-believer is to me no different from being
a flying saucer-believer.

And so it goes.

 

[Jumi]

As babies, we have innate love for our parents.
The all powerful givers of life.

My guess is that the search for a "god" to fill that role
is, just that. The search, as an adult, for something
to fill the role t hat parents had.

That somewhat fits with people who believe in benevolent creator deities, but how about theists who don't?

 

[Nakosis]

Because the universe is simply too well done to have appeared by chance. Because everywhere I look I see purpose and intelligence and proof of careful planning. Because nature is full of connections that can't have appeared out of the blue for no reason other than blind chance. I don't believe in myriads of lucky coincidences coming together to create something great and life in all it's forms is so amazing that the word "great" doesn't do it any justice.

So what insight does this universe provide for knowledge about a creator of it?

Say you like a painting. Looking at the painting makes you feel good. Let's say in this case, like the universe, there is no signature on the painting. You only know the paint is real and it makes you feel good by looking at it.

From this, what knowledge can you ascertain about the artist themselves? Was the artist male? Female? Even human? What was the artist's purpose in creating the painting? Did the artist have foreknowledge that you would be looking at the painting or even know of your existence? Did the artist place the painting where they did for the purpose of making you feel good?

Really, knowing you have no real knowledge about the artist themselves you are free to create a fictional character with whatever attributes you might fancy for this artist to have.

In my case, I could see the painting, feel however it makes me feel and simply not create a fictional character knowing I really don't have any knowledge on which the base the artist. For me, that is all a atheist is. A person who accepts their lack of knowledge.

 

[Audie]

Because the universe is simply too well done to have appeared by chance. Because everywhere I look I see purpose and intelligence and proof of careful planning. Because nature is full of connections that can't have appeared out of the blue for no reason other than blind chance. I don't believe in myriads of lucky coincidences coming together to create something great and life in all it's forms is so amazing that the word "great" doesn't do it any justice.

You do know that nobody proposes such a thing?

 

[Audie]

So what insight does this universe provide for knowledge about a creator of it?
.

There being far more species of beetle than of any
other sort of creature...

A noted entomologist was asked, they say, if one
come deduce something about the nature of god,
from his works.

"I'd say", came his response, "that God must be
inordinately fond of beetles'"

 

[Desert Snake]

What do you think, I'm praying in front of a picture, or something? Yeah...

 

[Audie]

That somewhat fits with people who believe in benevolent creator deities, but how about theists who don't?

Well, who knows. Not everyone had nice parents?

And me...terrific parents, but, I feel no pull whateer
to believe in a god.

Not a nice one,not a mean one or a purple
one or a yellow one.

Probably a lot more of us are so, than will
ever be known.

For lo, the belief in god that so many have must
surely be from having it instilled at an impressionable
age.

 

[Nakosis]

Global skepticism?

I guess my pov is simpler. There is no way to detect
the presence of any god. It seems to me that any and
all proposed gods have that in common that they have
all the same characteristics as divers cryptozoolical
creatures, that is, all the characteristics of something
that does not exist.

Being a god-believer is to me no different from being
a flying saucer-believer.

And so it goes.

Yes, I don't want to pretend to know what I don't know. Thinking one has or assuming knowledge about something I see as a necessity for belief in it's existence.

 

[Vee]

From this, what knowledge can you ascertain about the artist themselves? Was the artist male? Female? Even human? What was the artist's purpose in creating the painting? Did the artist have foreknowledge that you would be looking at the painting or even know of your existence? Did the artist place the painting where they did for the purpose of making you feel good?

Really, knowing you have no real knowledge about the artist themselves you are free to create a fictional character with whatever attributes you might fancy for this artist to have.

The question is not what I know about the artist, but that I know there is an artist. It's about the existence of the person.

It is true that when people don't know about the artist they make up their own ideas about him/her and sometimes they get creative, but none of them is going to say that the painting painted itself.

 

[Nakosis]

The question is not what I know about the artist, but that I know there is an artist. It's about the existence of the person.

It is true that when people don't know about the artist they make up their own ideas about him/her and sometimes they get creative, but none of them is going to say that the painting painted itself.

Is the artist self aware conscious, intelligent? The artist could have been an animal, computer, mechanical process. There are lots of ways a painting can be created by a non-conscious, not intelligent process.

 

[Vee]

The artist could have been an animal, computer, mechanical process.

It could. But where did the animal,computer or mechanical process come from?

 

[Nakosis]

It could. But where did the animal,computer or mechanical process come from?

I don't know. I don't presume to know. Which for me is the point of being a atheist.