Why I am an atheist

[Kenny]

In what language did God name this planet "Earth?" And what was its name in that language?

I think He is multi-lingual. I'm sure that when He told Moses "earth" - He said it in the language Moses understood. If He would have talked to Moses in today's English... I'm sure Moses wouldn't have understood.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In what language did God name this planet "Earth?" And what was its name in that language?

The old Hebrews Scriptures were written in: Hebrew.
The ' book of generations ' (Genesis 5:1) covers or includes ' the generations ' of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4.
So, Noah had that book or books in Hebrew to take on the Ark with him which Moses could use to write down the old Hebrew Scriptures for us.
Since I can't read or write Hebrew then a Rabbi or other Jewish person could print Genesis 1:10 out for us with its pronunciation of Earth.

 

[alypius]

I do not believe in god for the same reason that I do not believe in ghosts, the Yeti, Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, fairies, gnomes, ogres, gremlins, banshees, naiads, dryads, jinn, fairy god-mothers

What if God is not one being among many (e.g. There is the computer screen; there is the desk; there is Zeus, and, look, there is God)?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What if God is not one being among many (e.g. There is the computer screen; there is the desk; there is Zeus, and, look, there is God)?

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. I have no idea what you are trying to suggest.

 

[paarsurrey]

(Continued from last post...)

Answering My Objections

No theist has ever actually answered my objections, although I answer all of theirs. Instead, when I raise what I consider to be a killer argument against god, they simply move on to another statement, usually unrelated. I’ve observed this many, many times in debates, for example between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. Dawkins gives direct answers to Collins’s points, while Collins frequently rebuts with discourses on “god’s purpose,” and similar arguments which are irrefutable.

But the truth is, the counter-argument to “red and green make purple,” is not “yellow and blue make green,” no matter how true the latter statement might be.

No Answers From Scripture(s)

Answers from Judeo-Christian scripture are no better to me than answers from other scriptures, or from Shakespeare or any other fiction. In fact, every answer from scripture is easily refuted, and almost always by a different selection from the same book. If this were not so, there would be no need for the very busy apologetics industry.

Religion, it seems to me, teaches that we should be satisfied without bothering to try and understand, to accept without questioning. All I ever have is questions, and magisterial answers, fully dependent on authority and nothing else, leave me completely unsatisfied.

God’s Greatest Creation

I’ve seen the human race at work. God’s greatest creation is responsible for a list of horrors too long for recitation here.

But it’s not just the evil that men do. It’s the sheer bloody stupidity of so much of the race. Watch the football hooligans in the stands, or in the streets after the game. See this creature, a little lower than the angels, this “piece of work...so infinite in faculty,” as it watches endless hours of “reality television.”

I’ve heard Joel Osteen, a “good Christian,” describe gays and lesbians as “not god’s best work” on Larry King Live on CNN. Yet Osteen seems unable, at least in this particular case, to follow the one thing that Christ is said to have really insisted upon – to love his fellow man without judging. Having failed at this single Christian duty, he still considers himself to be, one must assume, among “god’s best work,” and therefore competent to judge the “sins” of others.

Guessing Game

A universe with god, well actually, with all the gods that humanity has created, is an endless guessing game, with poorer odds of being right than the lottery. What does god want? You’ll never figure it out by observing and trying to make sense out of who suffers and who enjoys happiness. If we can’t tell here on earth, what hope have we of understanding the rules by which one merits “heaven?”

Confusion

No god worthy of the position could possibly have arranged to be so variously, and badly, misunderstood. One hundred thousand religions later, and still no agreement on who or what god is, and what He/It wants.

Spirituality Needs Art, Not god

Spirituality is not aided by unwarranted fear nor unjustified hope, but rather by deeper understanding of ourselves and our universe. For true spirituality, put aside your scripture and turn instead to art – any art. And having done so, recognize that scripture is likewise art, able to provide us with new perspectives on ourselves and our world, worthy of similar (but not greater) respect.

Too Many Beliefs, Too Little Reason

I do not believe in god for the same reason that I do not believe in ghosts, the Yeti, Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, fairies, gnomes, ogres, gremlins, banshees, naiads, dryads, jinn, fairy god-mothers or spontaneous human combustion, among a rather longish list of other nonsense routinely held to be reasonable by far too many people.

• Every “fact” of science can be demonstrated again and again in controlled experiments. Every theory makes predictions which can be tested for. Not a single “fact” of such pseudo-scientific or religious nonsense ever has been, nor ever can be, tested, and none makes predictions that I’m aware of (or when they do, as is sometimes said of astrology, they are either to general to be useful, or turn out to be wrong a statistically correct number of times).
• When a theory of science is finally shown not to fulfill some criterion or other implicit in itself, then the theory is either corrected or discarded. Pseudo-science and religion are immune to that sort of self-correction, since there is never going to be any evidence to “disprove” their assertions anyway.
• If anything must exist, it might as well be the universe as god. Is a naked singularity so much less likely than a consciousness without any other sort of existence, (or means to support itself)? Why propose a middle-man, which only complicates matters?

Morals and Ethics

Throughout my entire atheist existence, I’ve managed to behave both more morally and more ethically, with more concern for my fellow man of whatever condition, than many of the religious people that I’ve known. I am in myself proof that morality needs no god – Torquemada, for example, is proof that believing in god does not guarantee moral behaviour.

What a tragic notion must be held by the faithful that if, by some calamity, they lost their faith in god, they would suddenly be unable to restrain themselves from theft and murder. The atheist is in no doubt at all that – should he suddenly believe in god – he should continue to behave as morally as he did before.

The problem with morality guided by religion is that religion (at least the human ones that I’m familiar with) is manifestly unintelligible. If this were not so, there would not, could not, have arisen about 100,000 of them in the course of human history.

God’s Infinite Mercy

I could never believe in both Hell and a merciful god. Mercy is not needed at all except by those who are not worthy of it. It is completely wasted on those who don’t need it.

Religion Gone Bad

I have seen human nature – that good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But to get a whole church or mosque panting for the deaths of the homosexuals, the idolaters, the “sinners” of every sort – yes, that takes religion.

Original Sin

Few things offend me as much as the idea of “original sin” – that I (the child abused by those most accountable for my security) inherit guilt along with their genes. The Bishop of Hippo would excuse god for deformed and still-born children on such a vile supposition, but I will not.

Conclusion, My Purpose, Not God's

Mostly, I am an atheist because I think, and none of my thinking led me to any notion of god. Nothing led me to understand that there was any other purpose to my existence than what I chose to make of it. My parents gave me life, but it is mine to live, not theirs. They can hope anything they like for me, but I will go my own way.

I am not interested in being the object of “god’s purpose,” whatever that might be (and I challenge anyone to tell me what it is). I’m the object of enough other purposes over which I have little control. Regarding a meaning or a purpose for my life, I prefer my own. And at the, least I have some hope of knowing what it is.

Post Scriptum

I was mentioning this the other day to a friend, who said to me my analogy of winning the lottery and belief is flawed with respect to belief. She said,"I play the lottery because I hope to win, not because I believe I will win."

Point taken. And it is true that I, too, play the lotteries. I also hope to win. But you know, if I believed that I could not win, I would not play. So, what does that suggest about my beliefs (even though I actually do know the odds)? Beliefs can, in fact, be much stronger than knowledge, for reasons that are so completely human. It's funny, but it's also a bit endearing sometimes -- as long as it doesn't get destructive!

Another point about my original post. I said "I am an atheist because I think." Someone I know told me that was pretty arrogant, and that many intelligent, thinking people believe in a deity.

For my comment, then, I must apologize, because of course there are intelligent people on this forum who also believe in a deity. My thought perhaps didn't read as well as it could, and I can see how it looks.

Ah, well, this is a work in progress, and I'm open to change. Still, I did not mean that believers don't think and atheists do. I meant that I have always spent a lot of time thinking, and every avenue of thought that I traversed led me to a different conclusion than the vast majority of other people.

Still, I wonder sometimes if it isn't true that most people don't really spend a lot of time and effort really thinking about the things that they take for granted, and if they actually did stop and examine more closely, they might arrive at different conclusions. This might be especially true, not so much for belief in god, but for rigid adherence to the particular dogmas of most formal religions. It would still be possible, I think, to believe in god and the message of Christ without believing that Mary was a virgin, that water turned into wine, or that the dead got out of their graves and wandered around town, and nobody thought to actually write a memo about it. Or that Jesus actually and literally died for our sins.

How does one know right from wrong, please?
How does one know error from non-error, please?
How does one know perfect from imperfect, please?
How does one know good from evil, please?
How does one know sin from no-sin, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards
_____________
#251

 

[Jedster]

The old Hebrews Scriptures were written in: Hebrew.
The ' book of generations ' (Genesis 5:1) covers or includes ' the generations ' of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4.
So, Noah had that book or books in Hebrew to take on the Ark with him which Moses could use to write down the old Hebrew Scriptures for us.
Since I can't read or write Hebrew then a Rabbi or other Jewish person could print Genesis 1:10 out for us with its pronunciation of Earth.

Here's the Hebrew

10And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas, and God saw that it was good. יוַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים | לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב:

PMFJI
Note that in the Hebrew translation earth is not capitalized, as a pronoun would be.
The planet was not named 'Earth', only the land was.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How does one know right from wrong, please?
How does one know error from non-error, please?
How does one know perfect from imperfect, please?
How does one know good from evil, please?
How does one know sin from no-sin, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards
_____________
#251

Ask yourself this: if you lost your faith, would you -- at the same time:

Lose your ability to tell right from wrong?
Suddenly stop knowing good from bad?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Here's the Hebrew
10And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas, and God saw that it was good. יוַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים | לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב:
PMFJI
Note that in the Hebrew translation earth is not capitalized, as a pronoun would be.
The planet was not named 'Earth', only the land was.

Thank you for your ^ above ^ comprehensive reply.
To me both dry land and the planet earth was named by God as: Earth - Genesis 1:10 ( I find No where does man name this planet as earth )
ALL the other planets are Not named by God, they are Not being named in Scripture, but by man.
( I do take the liberty to use an Upper-Case letter "E" to emphasize something to stand out such as when I am referring to ' earth ' )
But, thank you for your mention about the capital letter E and hope since I can't put emphasis verbally is why I use the capital E to stand out.
I also sometimes use the Upper-Case letter "N" just to emphasize a word like "Not " so it will not be overlooked.

 

[Jedster]

Thank you for your ^ above ^ comprehensive reply.
To me both dry land and the planet earth was named by God as: Earth - Genesis 1:10 ( I find No where does man name this planet as earth )
ALL the other planets are Not named by God, they are Not being named in Scripture, but by man.
( I do take the liberty to use an Upper-Case letter "E" to emphasize something to stand out such as when I am referring to ' earth ' )
But, thank you for your mention about the capital letter E and hope since I can't put emphasis verbally is why I use the capital E to stand out.
I also sometimes use the Upper-Case letter "N" just to emphasize a word like "Not " hay'so it will not be overlooked.

Well, in Hebrew if earth wasmeant o be a pronoun, it would have ben preceeded with the letter hay, הַ, and the translation would have read
And God called the dry land the Earth,

Anyway, it's no big deal and I have no idea how the Earth was given it's name.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[paarsurrey]

Ask yourself this: if you lost your faith, would you -- at the same time:

Lose your ability to tell right from wrong?
Suddenly stop knowing good from bad?

Kindly don't be angry, please. I asked the same question from our Christian friend@John D. Brey , please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How does one know right from wrong, please?
How does one know error from non-error, please?
How does one know perfect from imperfect, please?
How does one know good from evil, please?
How does one know sin from no-sin, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards
_____________
#251

I want to go further on this, @paarsurrey, because it seems to be something that really bothers some believers -- even people that I consider to be very good already. They may think that they are very good only because of their faith, but I am not so certain.

Implied in your question is the idea that a strong believer in God knows that it is wrong to kill, or to steal, or to molest children, only because they've been told so by God. They seem to be genuinely terrified that if they did not believe in God, they would somehow lose their belief that these things are wrong in themselves -- regardless of what god has to say about it. Oddly, I remain 100% certain that they would not do that -- that they could not do that.

And I will say this, too. I know of religious people who, while they are supposed to know these things are wrong, have committed them anyway. And this is true in every religion, so I'm not holding any one faith in contempt.

So I'll come to your question about "sin" and "not sin." Frankly, I'm uninterested in the notion of sin, because what it really means is not right or wrong, good or evil, but rather falling short, failing in some way that perhaps you might have avoided.

Well, I'm human -- so are you. We are going to fall short from time to time, not do as well as we could have, or do things of which we might even be ashamed. I believe that, as humans, the best we can do with those is to make an effort to notice where we've fallen short, and to do better next time.

Now, sometimes, if the error is bad enough, we may be required to do more penance -- maybe a fine or jail. Okay, so be it. But what I really object to is people who, while believing in God, do seriously bad things, and then hope that through "confession" (or prayerful repentence to God) that they can be absolved of those transgressions. My opinion is -- they cannot, but because they feel that they can, may come to believe that they can commit the same offense again, with the same easy way out.

I do not require religion or God to tell me what is right and wrong. I have a human heart that knows all by itself.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Kindly don't be angry, please. I asked the same question from our Christian friend@John D. Brey , please. Right, please?

Regards

I am not at all angry. I think that the question is valid, but I think that in the last couple of posts I have answered to the best of my ability.

 

[paarsurrey]

I want to go further on this, @paarsurrey, because it seems to be something that really bothers some believers -- even people that I consider to be very good already. They may think that they are very good only because of their faith, but I am not so certain.

Implied in your question is the idea that a strong believer in God knows that it is wrong to kill, or to steal, or to molest children, only because they've been told so by God. They seem to be genuinely terrified that if they did not believe in God, they would somehow lose their belief that these things are wrong in themselves -- regardless of what god has to say about it. Oddly, I remain 100% certain that they would not do that -- that they could not do that.

And I will say this, too. I know of religious people who, while they are supposed to know these things are wrong, have committed them anyway. And this is true in every religion, so I'm not holding any one faith in contempt.

So I'll come to your question about "sin" and "not sin." Frankly, I'm uninterested in the notion of sin, because what it really means is not right or wrong, good or evil, but rather falling short, failing in some way that perhaps you might have avoided.

Well, I'm human -- so are you. We are going to fall short from time to time, not do as well as we could have, or do things of which we might even be ashamed. I believe that, as humans, the best we can do with those is to make an effort to notice where we've fallen short, and to do better next time.

Now, sometimes, if the error is bad enough, we may be required to do more penance -- maybe a fine or jail. Okay, so be it. But what I really object to is people who, while believing in God, do seriously bad things, and then hope that through "confession" (or prayerful repentence to God) that they can be absolved of those transgressions. My opinion is -- they cannot, but because they feel that they can, may come to believe that they can commit the same offense again, with the same easy way out.

I do not require religion or God to tell me what is right and wrong. I have a human heart that knows all by itself.

Thanks for one's above thoughts, please. One may revise one's thoughts anytime please.
Regards

 

[Kenny]

Ask yourself this: if you lost your faith, would you -- at the same time:

Lose your ability to tell right from wrong?
Suddenly stop knowing good from bad?

Yes.

Or, you could say it this way.

Before I found faith, I had a different set of values of what was good and what was bad therefore one could say that I started realizing and knowing good from bad after I found faith.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Then present the "right God."

I will when I figure it out.

Gotta say, that's pretty telling.

 

[osgart]

How does one know right from wrong, please?
How does one know error from non-error, please?
How does one know perfect from imperfect, please?
How does one know good from evil, please?
How does one know sin from no-sin, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards
_____________
#251

People are quite capable of reasoning and understanding right from wrong by learning and experiencing life for themselves.

 

[Misty Woods]

So the real answer, the only one that actually answers the question “why am I an atheist,” seems to be, “because that’s the way I’m made.” This is hardly a satisfying answer, of course, and doesn’t seem to answer the question that is so often asked. The intent of that question, if I understand it correctly, is rather more “how is it possible you gave up god?”

I read your post twice, due the childhood commonalities that we share. So many children throughout this world are the very reason why the lyrics of ‘Hell Is For Children’ was written. As a horribly abused child myself, my heart hurts for whatever evils any and all adults put you through.

So many of us, me included, either have or still do reason, that a loving God would not allow all the suffering that we experience and witness in this earth, and not receiving a satisfactory Scriptural answer for it. Belief in God is undermined in youth by constant repetition by teachers and educators that there is no God. And still others have been turned away from God because of the conflicting teachings and the atheistic leanings of religious leaders. Churches, instead of building faith in God, have been responsible for millions of persons turning toward atheistic communism. Their conflicting teachings, religious persecutions, warmongering and currying the favor of the rich and influential have caused many to reason that, if the churches represent God, then there must not be a God. Many responsible churchmen even admit religion’s guilt. The very atheism of Communism is a judgment upon the churches, which have usually been ornaments of the status quo, no matter how unjust it has been. The failure of the churches to imitate Christ and to provide accurate knowledge concerning God has prepared the way for atheism.


The existence of evil and the suffering it has brought to mankind does not arbitrarily rule that a God of love does not exist. Such a view overlooks entirely man’s responsibility. It is like a patient who ignores a doctor’s instructions, and then denies the existence of the doctor because he is suffering. Or it is like a machinist who refuses to follow the manufacturer’s advice, and then, when his tools do not function properly, denies that the manufacturer exists. In such cases it would be foolish to question the existence of a compassionate doctor or a skilled manufacturer. The individual himself is to blame for the suffering and trouble.

The Scriptures show that God created the first human pair perfect, with the prospect of enjoying life in an earthly paradise as long as they lived. This provision was an evidence of God’s love. But when mankind refused to follow God’s instructions, they suffered the consequences. This did not mean a loving God does not exist. God had warned them in advance what would happen; so it was man, not God, that was responsible for the suffering, sickness and death that followed.—Gen. 1:27, 28; Deut. 32:4, 5; Eccl. 7:29.

True, it would not be loving to allow this suffering to continue indefinitely. Human wickedness and suffering have been tolerated only because an issue was raised in the Eden paradise. One of God’s many spirit creatures, Satan, of his own free will, influenced Adam and Eve to disobey God.

In the presence of all the other spirit creatures, Satan’s, as well as Adam and Eve’s chosen behavior, called into question God’s creatorship and his justice in demanding obedience as a condition for life and yet seemingly not creating man with the capability of remaining loyal to God, of their own free will.

So God has allowed a set period of time, to settle this question with mankind and all spirit creatures, as to whether humans can remain faithful under test.


Philosopher Celestine N. Bittle wrote in his book God and His Creatures: “No people has ever been discovered which, in the strict sense of the term, is ‘atheistic.’ Individuals may be atheists; but a people, never. This universal belief is a tremendous fact.” It is strong evidence that man was originally created with the inherent inclination to acknowledge God’s existence.

In order to satisfy man’s quest to know about Him, God provided man with an inspired record about Himself, that is the most translated, and most published book in all of history, and it can be found in every continent of the world. In this account God also explains man’s origin, why sickness and death exist and what hope there is for the future. The collection of these inspired writings is now generally known as the Holy Bible or Scriptures.—2 Tim. 3:16.


The Scriptures are in harmony with man’s inherent inclination to acknowledge God’s existence and go to support it. They attribute the beautiful starry heavens, the marvelous earth and intelligent man to the handiwork of God. They state: “God created the heavens and the earth,” also, “God proceeded to create the man.” Yes, the evidence of the Scriptures, the natural dictate of human reason and the law and order that govern the universe all testify to the fact that God does exist.—Gen. 1:1, 27.


In an article titled “Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics,” Evolutionist William B. Provine wrote “What we have learned about the evolutionary process has enormous implications for us, affecting our sense of meaning in life.” He concluded,“I can see no cosmic or ultimate meaning in human life.”

If ultimate meaning in life were nonexistent, then you would have no purpose in living other than to try to do some measure of good and perhaps pass on your genetic traits to the next generation. At death, you would cease to exist forever. Your brain, with its ability to think, reason, and meditate on the meaning of life, would simply be an accident of nature.

People who believe in evolution assert that God does not exist or that he will not intervene in human affairs. In either case, our future would rest in the hands of political, academic, and religious leaders. Judging from the past and present record of such power hungry humans, the chaos, conflict, and corruption that blight human society would continue. If, indeed, evolution were true, there would seem to be ample reason to live by the fatalistic motto: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”—1 Corinthians 15:32.

By contrast, the Bible teaches: “With [God] is the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9) If this is true, then life does have meaning. Our Creator has a loving purpose that extends to all who choose to live in accord with his will. (Ecclesiastes 12:13) That purpose includes the promise of life in a world free of chaos, conflict, and corruption—and even free of death.—Psalm 37:10, 11; Isaiah 25:6-8.


But there is at least one more vital factor that is responsible for so many questioning the existence of God. That is because they want to believe the lie that there is no God. God’s righteous law is an uncomfortable restriction. They want to be free to pursue their selfish course without the pangs of conscience that would gnaw at them should they be accountable to God’s law. And so, because they do “not accept the love of the truth . . . God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie.”—2 Thess. 2:10, 11.