Why atheism?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well then I guess it is theoretically possible that animals believe in God as well.

It comes, in this case, back to understanding. A person without the concept of God neither believes or disbelieves since that requires knowledge. They are, essentially, neutral. Lack of concept does not as a default put them in either of the categories - belief/disbelief.

A child before the age where they know of such thing does not believe, but at the same time they don't really disbelieve. As such they are neutral. When they reach an age where they grasp the concept they will fall into the categories - do they believe there is a God/gods (Theists) or not (Atheist.)

Originally posted by Regret
That is my view.

Well, I am in reasonable agreement.

Of course it links to two different things:

Lacking knowledge to either believe or not (not theism or Athiesm)

Having knowledge and choosing to believe or not (Theism or Athiesm)

Originally posted by Regret
I agree, I do not believe proof as to the existence/nonexistence of God is possible. I disagree that there is any evidence to either side of the argument. And on the existence side, such evidence is not often replicable and is often subjective, and therefore not necessarily evidence to those not present at the time.

Then why aren't you agnostic?

Originally posted by Regret
I agree, I'd go further and say hate is not a part of it. Hate is something outside the terms.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Atheism isn't Openminded to the "Could be", if you are, you arn't Athiest(the people trying to get Under God removed from the POA)

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
We are all born Atheist.

Originally posted by Regret
A decision is required to be atheist, you can't disbelieve or deny something you don't know about.

Originally posted by Regret
atheism is the denial or disbelief in the existence of god, not having belief in god is not the same as atheism. Atheism as you describe would be existent at birth, iff God doesn't exist, I believe infants are born with the belief, and experience with examples of disbelief are the reason for the occurrence of disbelief. Given this, I could say that all infants are born theists.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I don't get atheists plain and simple.

That we are is a phenomenon proof enough.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I think infants are the most prone to be the ultimate anti-all things atheisim. Just by existing they are experiencing, submitting, acepting the natural laws governing life.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't believe that science and religion are diametrically opposed. Science is in line with any rational religion. Science does not conflict with the concept of God. The concept of God does not conflict with science.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's like saying chocolate bars and rainbows are proof of unicorns.

Originally posted by Alliance
Then why aren't you agnostic?

I have had experiences that do not fit with doubt as to the existence of God. I do not claim that they are evidence, as I have no tangible support for the personal experience and they are not replicable.

Originally posted by Alliance
No one in their right mind would believe in a god.

In your opinion, which is biased by your stance as atheist.

Originally posted by Alliance
You stuck in a mental rut. You start CLEAN. Tabula Rasa. The only reason you believe in god is because someone else told you. No infant is born praying. That concept is simply absurd.

I did not state they were born praying. I believe that infants are born with a glimmer of understanding as to the existence of God. Such is entirely possible, especially given that human memory is horrible. Stating that an infant is born atheist is a similar stance, and both are unprovable as it will be impossible to raise an infant in a theist/atheist neutral environment. Your claim as to the reason I believe in God is hasty and without knowledge of my history. I can tell you that I have experienced religious variety in my history, and have not always believed as I do currently. I have experienced atheism, satanism, mainstream Christianity, extreme cult, Masonry, Celtic Wicca, and a few others, many firsthand, a few secondhand. I believe as I do due to experience with the people created by varied belief systems as well as the belief systems themselves. My beliefs have also been shaped by my personal experiences within religions, and the varied experiences within each. I believe as I do because to believe otherwise, given the evidence as to where people have the highest tendency of proper behavior and happiness, would be illogical. The idea that atheism is correct, when in my experience a higher level of happiness and contentment exist in a theist paradigm, is absurd.

Originally posted by Alliance
Correct. But science has undoubtedly changed the nature of god, forced him back. More proof against god.

Science has not changed the nature of God, it has changed the traditions and philosophies of men about the nature of God. God has always been the same, it is man that has grown and has found his own opinions and superstitions about the nature of God to be in error. More proof as to the faulty nature of Man's philosophies when not grounded in true science. God is existent, man merely has developed elaborate philosophies about him and his existance which have evolved into a belief that God stated he existed as man has stated he does. Science is merely another means of clarifying the errors of man's religious philosophies. Science does not force God back, man himself does this.

Originally posted by Regret
In your opinion, which is biased by your stance as atheist.

Although an atheist could respond that it is the other way around - it often seems to be an unwinnable argument about which side is more biased or not (and I can't say, but then again some people least willing to listen have been religious in my experience.)

I did not state they were born praying. I believe that infants are born with a glimmer of understanding as to the existence of God. Such is entirely possible, especially given that human memory is horrible. Stating that an infant is born atheist is a similar stance, and both are unprovable as it will be impossible to raise an infant in a theist/atheist neutral environment.

That was what I was getting at. Personally since I think religion is man made one learns it from others rather then feels it in oneself. Still a child is born without the necessary knowledge or cognitive ability to believe either way. They are neutral - neither atheist or theist.

The idea that atheism is correct, when in my experience a higher level of happiness and contentment exist in a theist paradigm, is absurd.

With is subjective. I dare say from my experiences an atheist is capable of being equally happy and content as a theist. This is that neither other greater happiness - since I operate upon the human side. I don't think there is a God, thus it is human happiness in religion, and human happiness in Atheist. Neither other a greater sense of well being, both world views can lend themselves to goodness.

Originally posted by Regret
I have had experiences that do not fit with doubt as to the existence of God. I do not claim that they are evidence, as I have no tangible support for the personal experience and they are not replicable.

Originally posted by Regret
In your opinion, which is biased by your stance as atheist.

Originally posted by Regret
I did not state they were born praying. I believe that infants are born with a glimmer of understanding as to the existence of God. Such is entirely possible, especially given that human memory is horrible. Stating that an infant is born atheist is a similar stance, and both are unprovable as it will be impossible to raise an infant in a theist/atheist neutral environment.

Originally posted by Regret
Science has not changed the nature of God, it has changed the traditions and philosophies of men about the nature of God.

Infants = natural-born atheists??

Infants are barely aware of themselves. In fact, they aren't aware of themselves until they're a few months old.

God as an abstract, think-for-yourself concept: that doesn't happen until adolescence, generally around when the capacity for abstract thought and metacognition emerges.

Speaking of which, IMO there is too much overthinking going on in this thread for a simple concept:

Atheism: "There is no God."
Theism: "There is a God."
Agnosticism: "I don't know."

Originally posted by Alliance
Then is it evidence or just you attempting to rationalize your position?

It is evidence for me, firsthand experience is evidence. Now, if I were to present it without tangible evidence, or without the capability to replicate the event, would a rational individual hold it as compelling evidence? Probably not. I do not delude myself into believing that my experiences would necessarily stand as evidence to another.

Originally posted by Alliance
No more biased then yours. I also have the ability to argue without some of the restraint of bias. If I'm debating something, I try to set aside my lenses. If I'm stating an opinion, of course its going to be biased.

I am not stating that I am not biased, I am stating that the atheist stance should not be the default stance. The atheist stance is not a rational stance from a theist perspective in the same manner that theism is not rational from an atheist stance. It is hypocritical to claim otherwise. Neither stance is without bias, atheists only have some sway because their base of understanding is acceptable and a part of any rational theist.

Originally posted by Alliance
Again, you're think of this the wrong way. Agnosticism is NOT the middle perspective. I'd argue that an infant would not spontaneously create a god, certainly not one with all the hoopla attached to it (as in indocrinated religion). The concept of God is an absurd concept, it goes against EVERY other natural principle. Gods are spread through people, not through independant observation.

This is only the perspective of the atheist, and not the perspective of the theist. It is only a belief based on your personal bias, not on fact. Atheism is just as indoctrinated as theism. You are a hypocrite when you force such a view on a theist and then claim they have no right to force a theist view on you. Quit forcing your beliefs concerning God on the theists, we have no more reason to accept your view than you do ours. There is no scientific evidence for the view of an infant on the concept of God, and the concept of God is not man made from a theists view. The question is untestable and your position does not rely on fact, it relies on the opposing view. Until the question is resolved, the most logical stance is somewhere between, not on the atheist side or the theist side of the discussion.

Originally posted by Alliance
Read history. It tells you many things. If you think the nature of God has not changed because of science, you are in clear denial of evidence.

Scientifically speaking, Regret, you would have to prove that infants DID know about God. Which you can't, so therefore an objective, rational opinion would dismiss the idea. It takes faith to make it work.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Although an atheist could respond that it is the other way around - it often seems to be an unwinnable argument about which side is more biased or not (and I can't say, but then again some people least willing to listen have been religious in my experience.)

That is my point. Atheism is not necessarily the default stance, no matter what atheists claim. Theism is not necessarily the default stance, no matter what theists claim. Both sides are biased, imo. Neither one is really in control of the situation, but they sure do think they are. The stance that atheism is the default is an entirely biased stance. I did not state that infants are theists, I stated that this is my belief, I did state that it is an unknown and as such our view should be that we do not know. I do not believe that without an understanding of the concept of God a person can be theist or atheist.

Just because science hasn't shown the existence of God, does not limit the possibility. Just because atheists deny the personal evidence of the theists does not make the personal evidence irrelevant. The atheist stance is not supported by science, but neither is the theists stance. Atheists feel that science supports their view. I, after twelve years of higher education and additional professional experience, believe that science supports the stance of the theist. Science cannot be used as support given this. Now, if science cannot be held as support for either position, which one has more support? I am biased, I accept that, but so is the atheist opposition.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
That was what I was getting at. Personally since I think religion is man made one learns it from others rather then feels it in oneself. Still a child is born without the necessary knowledge or cognitive ability to believe either way. They are neutral - neither atheist or theist.

That is my point.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which is subjective.

I think a great many people will take it as entirely unreasonable to say that science support theism, Regret. I think that is the kind of statement that greatly damages credibility.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Scientifically speaking, Regret, you would have to prove that infants DID know about God. Which you can't, so therefore an objective, rational opinion would dismiss the idea. It takes faith to make it work.

This is assuming an atheist stance. Theists claim a great deal of personal, subjective, evidence as to God. Given this, from a theist stance such is not irrational, subjective yes, but not irrational.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think a great many people will take it as entirely unreasonable to say that science support theism, Regret. I think that is the kind of statement that greatly damages credibility.

We are all born Atheist.

Originally posted by Lana
How can you follow a religion that worships a higher being and be atheist?

Atheists believe that we are only worm food........I don't believe that....there is much paranormal things that go on to say different.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Atheists believe that we are only worm food........I don't believe that....there is much paranormal things that go on to say different.

Whereas philosophers and fundamentalists are in a science room looking at the paranormal saying "Yeah this seems possible, we've tested it, looked at all the variables, and it turns out that humans do have souls that escape to the clouds when we die, hard to believe but it's true!"

😐

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, every time we go into our church [of the religion of atheism] the vicar [of atheism] says the words "And whenst though shall be buried, thou shalt be food for the worms of the Earth.

Whereas philosophers and fundamentalists are in a science room looking at the paranormal saying "Yeah this seems possible, we've tested it, looked at all the variables, and it turns out that humans do have souls that escape to the clouds when we die, hard to believe but it's true!"

😐

🙄 😆

Originally posted by debbiejo
Atheists believe that we are only worm food........I don't believe that....there is much paranormal things that go on to say different.

😐

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
🙄 😆