"Why Is It That Atheists Don't Believe In God?"

[ChristineM]

Yes, it is. And I laid out the ideology in post #51.
That's not an argument. It's just an opinion based on ignorance.
There is nothing to be learned from a lack of information except that we lack information. And yet the atheist bases his 'default position' solely upon it. Which is quite irrational, especially for people who claim to be so beholding to logic and reason and evidence.

I dont actually care what you laid out unless you have a PhD in the subject and have your views peer reviewed.
Atheism is an ideology Iike not collecting stamps is a hobby

Yes, your ignorance, the fact remains, there is no evidence.

As opposed to you building your life and faith around lack of evidence and dissing anyone who doesnt agree with you. Some compassion your faith shows eh?

The only claim atheists make is they disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of God or gods. Anything else you add to that to suite your sensibilities is simple ignorance

 

[LuisDantas]

There are plenty of them here, just ask them.

I know us well enough.

 

[ChristineM]

I said atheism is irrational. I did not say it was "wrong". You are seeing and reading whatever you want to see, because it suits your bias.

So be it.

Irrational : not logical,not reasonable.

What bias is there in that

 

[Trailblazer]

I said: "There is more to my religion than logic can ever accommodate. "

What is so funny about that?
Do you think that logic can encompass God?
Do you know what the "more" is?

 

[ArtieE]

I said atheism is irrational.

Can you elaborate on that? Is it not believing in the existence of gods that is irrational? Or just not believing in the existence of your particular god? That would make every other theist who believes in other god(s) also irrational and you should mention them in the same sentence as atheists.

 

[PureX]

Can you elaborate on that? Is it not believing in the existence of gods that is irrational?

see post #51.

Or just not believing in the existence of your particular god?

I don't believe in any particular gods ... see post #53.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I'm strongly for social justice and the level playing field. So, officially, are most kinds of most religions. Yet all the major advances in that direction ─ abolition of slavery, universal free education, electoral franchise for all citizens, women's rights, financial assistance for the disabled, the aged, the unemployed, and (in the US by the slimmest of margins) universal health care,have been achieved by government, not religion. Socialist principles have been behind nearly all the successes ─ these are points that by and large have been opposed by the right. Believers are found both on the right and on the left, underlining that religion as such is not the engine of social reform.
If there is a real god, [he] still lacks a meaningful definition, so that the concept is wholly unclear in reality. But putting that aside, the fact that many or even all lack belief in a god, or that particular god, wouldn't prevent that god from doing good. Or ill. Or whatever the nature of that god might turn out to be.

I too strongly feel a lot on many of the issues you mentioned and for me personally I believe I’ve found a way to bring about transformation of society. But sadly it cannot be done through current systems as they havecbecimevcirruoted by greed and self interest.

Now, building a new world civilization involving the transformation of the individual and society I see as very possible and I believe as humanity matured we will eventually enter a golden age of peace and unity never dreamed of. Humanity has a glorious future awaiting it even though her immediate future is distressingly dark.

 

[stvdv]

"Why Is It That Atheists Don't Believe In God?"

I heard that reading The Bible can be a cause for atheism.

And I heard that evangelizing/proselytizing can be a cause for atheism too.

 

[stvdv]

Sound reasonable to you? It does to me

I liked the video.

Thanks for sharing this video. Were some good "common sense" arguments from atheists

1) The only reasonable thing to say is "I don't know"

2) "The universe was not designed for you (alone)"

3) Below Q/A started at "t=458" as in "Code:" link below
Q: "So the universe created itself?"
A: "No....the origine of the universe we don't have an explanation for"
Q: "So there is no point in believing it ... until we have solid evidence?"
A: "Correct ..." (and everyone applauded)

https://youtu.be/aVRvYhq_uXE?t=458

Personal question: Is it possible on RF to include a "clickable" link that starts exactly on a given point
(Now you need to "select + right.click GOTO"; I could not make it clickable; t=458 means at 7:38)

I am fine if others believe in God (or not), without having evidence. But claiming "I believe in God", and in the same breath claiming "I know that God exists" are contradictions or at least shows you are still confused. And of course the same is true for people claiming "God does not exist".

Better chose 1 option: a)I believe in God + b)I know God exists + c)I believe not in God + d)I know God does not exist.

For thousands of years people tried to convince others that God exists. Did not work, God is still unknown/unproven. So, for sure trying to convince others seems a bit useless to me.

I prefer to investigate "Who Am I". That puzzle is already big enough for me. And it makes more sense to me to solve things close to me and around me than to solve puzzles about universes trillions of lightyears away.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism is based on the very irrational assumption that "if it exists, I (the atheist) would be able to know it", and "you (the theist) would be able to prove it to me". And since neither of these absurd criteria has been met, the atheist then assumes non-existence by default (and then lies about having done so by pretending to be merely 'undecided').

I am a weak atheist because I haven't found any good reason to become a theist. I don't "assume non-existence by default" I just don't believe gods exist in the same way I don't believe people are being abducted by aliens. Maybe some day I might hear arguments or come across evidence so compelling that I start believing but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[PureX]

I am a weak atheist because I haven't found any good reason to become a theist. I don't "assume non-existence by default" I just don't believe gods exist in the same way I don't believe people are being abducted by aliens. Maybe some day I might hear arguments or come across evidence so compelling that I start believing but it hasn't happened yet.

But clearly, you DO believe that gods don't exist. You just stated this above (you: "I just don't believe gods exist"). And yet somehow you have managed convinced yourself that you didn't assume non-existence by default (you: "I don't "assume non-existence by default""). A fascinatingly blatant contradiction that you somehow manage not to recognize. And you are not alone, as there are a number of other self-proclaimed atheists here on RF who follow this same wildly incoherent reasoning. They have "no reason" to believe gods exist, yet they then assume, by default, that no gods exist, even though they have equally no reason to assume this. And to avoid being called out on this unreasoned assumption, they then claim that they are simply "unconvinced" (which logically would mean 'undecided'), when clearly they are not undecided, as they have decided that no gods exist.

 

[ArtieE]

But clearly, you DO believe that gods don't exist.

No I don't.

You just stated this above (you: "I just don't believe gods exist").

I think I see your problem. You apparently can't tell the difference between the statement "I don't believe gods exist" and the statement "I believe gods don't exist". The statement "I don't believe gods exist" can be rewritten as "I do not have the belief that gods do exist". The statement "I believe gods don't exist" can be rewritten as "I do have the belief that gods don't exist." Can you now tell the difference? Do you understand that the statement "I do not have the belief that gods do exist" means there's an absence of belief, while in the statement "I do have the belief that gods don't exist" there's a presence of belief?

 

[PureX]

No I don't.I think I see your problem. You apparently can't tell the difference between the statement "I don't believe gods exist" and the statement "I believe gods don't exist".

That's because there is no difference. The difference you are trying to imply can simply and clearly be stated as; "I do not know if any gods exist or not". But this is not the statement you insist on proclaiming over and over and over and over. And that is because it is not your position. Your position is that unless you can be convinced that gods exist, you assume that they do not. And yet you are hiding this blind assumption from yourself, and trying to hide it from the rest of us, behind these silly double negatives and convoluted word games.

As demonstrated by this:

The statement "I don't believe gods exist" can be rewritten as "I do not have the belief that gods do exist". The statement "I believe gods don't exist" can be rewritten as "I do have the belief that gods don't exist." Can you now tell the difference?

 

[ArtieE]

That's because there is no difference.

Yes there is. Your problem is that you don't understand the difference. And because you don't understand the difference your reasoning makes no sense.

The difference you are trying to imply can simply and clearly be stated as; "I do not know if any gods exist or not".

No it can't. Now you don't appear to understand the difference between saying "I don't believe" and "I don't know".

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

By not accepting God I simply mean the same thing that they don’t think God exists or don’t see any need for a God.

I say that because man made systems have gotten so many things wrong. I include religious systems because no Holy Book or Prophet ever brought a system of governance for humanity until just recently.

Absolutely false. Look at Europe during the rule by the Moors.

Or later, during the Dark Ages, when christianity was synonymous with government.

Or pretty much anywhere in the modern day Middle East...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Belief in Jesus and the Gospels should be what unites all Christians.

Go study the Dark Ages: When Europe was ruled by those very same things... it was a horrible time to be alive...

 

[columbus]

That's because there is no difference.

Yes, there is a difference. There are even terms to distinguish between them.
"Strong" atheism is the "I know Gods don't exist. "Weak/Agnostic" atheism is the "I have no reason to believe that Gods exist".
Despite being noisy on the internet, I find strong atheists quite rare. Agnostics are the overwhelming majority.
We agnostics simply see gods as fictional characters created by humans for a few different reasons. The plethora of such various characters is powerful evidence to me that they're all human creations.
Tom

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes, there is a difference. There are even terms to distinguish between them.
"Strong" atheism is the "I know Gods don't exist. "Weak/Agnostic" atheism is the "I have no reason to believe that Gods exist".
Despite being noisy on the internet, I find strong atheists quite rare. Agnostics are the overwhelming majority.
We agnostics simply see gods as fictional characters created by humans for a few different reasons. The plethora of such various characters is powerful evidence to me that they're all human creations.
Tom

Generally speaking, I'm agnostic with respect to the term 'god'.

However, for certain values of 'god', you can call me a "hard atheist".

Say, for example, the OT god, if the bible is taken entirely literally? Cannot possibly exist, because it's clear you cannot have a square-circle. That is, internally contradictory things cannot exist.

Another example: you cannot have a single married-man. The terms are mutually exclusive.

And many-many definitions of 'god' (example: the literal OT god) are described by definitions, cannot exist, because the definitions contain traits that are mutually exclusive.

But wait! There is more!

Many many definitions of 'god', contain traits, that if True-with-a-T? Would leave behind testable (falsifiable) evidence that this being exists (or had existed in the past), but these evidences are simply not there. Therefore? Said being, as described, also does not exist.

It all boils down to: Define what one means by 'god', and let's go forward from there.

So far? All such descriptions, always contain mutually exclusive traits/behaviors, that prove beyond a doubt, the god as described, cannot exist.

Of course-- the astute critic would note that the descriptions can be wrong, and that some sort of 'god' may well exist, just not as described.

And yes, this I will agree with.

Thus? Agnostic.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, there is a difference. There are even terms to distinguish between them.
"Strong" atheism is the "I know Gods don't exist.

No it isn't. It's "I believe gods don't exist".

"Weak/Agnostic" atheism is the "I have no reason to believe that Gods exist".

No it isn't. Weak atheism is "I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist. I'm neutral." An agnostic weak atheist says "I don't know if gods exist or not. I neither believe they do nor do I believe they don't. I'm neutral". An agnostic strong atheist says: "I don't know if gods exist but I believe they don't exist."

 

[PureX]

Yes, there is a difference. There are even terms to distinguish between them.
"Strong" atheism is the "I know Gods don't exist. "Weak/Agnostic" atheism is the "I have no reason to believe that Gods exist".

The terms are baloney and the difference is imaginary.

If one claims that they do not know if gods exist or not, they cannot logically then claim that no gods exist. Gods not existing is not the logical result of not knowing if they exist or not. So atheists cannot logically claim agnosticism, and agnostics cannot logically claim to be atheists. So there are no "strong and weak atheists". There are only atheists, and liars. The liars being those who are agnostic but falsely claiming to be atheists, and those who are atheists falsely claiming to be agnostic.

Despite being noisy on the internet, I find strong atheists quite rare. Agnostics are the overwhelming majority.
We agnostics simply see gods as fictional characters created by humans for a few different reasons. The plethora of such various characters is powerful evidence to me that they're all human creations.
Tom

This latter statement opens up a whole new debate based on clarifications of the ideal of existence. A human ideal also filled with self-delusion and dishonesty. But we'll leave that for another thread.

Theists would be (and some are) just as guilty of this same incoherent reasoning and dishonest claim-staking as atheists are, except that theists usually do not claim to be basing their beliefs on objective knowledge, but rather on a faith-based choice. Thus, they could be both agnostic and theist, because they would be agnostic based on their lack of knowledge, and theist based on their faith choice.