Thread: Why did you become an Atheist?

I know what you are trying to say...but to me, lack of belief that something is real and belief that something isnt real is kind of a semantics game to me, just meant to soften the tone of it. I know there are many that disagree with me though, so I digress lol.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No one become's an atheist, people become theists. Everyone is born atheist, religion is taught.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is not a very fair question.

Firstly, everyone is born Atheist because, in its strict definition, it is the lack of belief in something.

I'm going to have to disagrees with both of these points. Everyone is not born atheist. A child simply does not have the knowledge capacity to make any type of "choice."

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.
“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”
Ref: Atheists.org

Plain and simple a child simply doesn't know what religion is nor what are the fundamental properties of natural phenomena to make any type of decision. I refuse to believe that most atheist are closed minded like that. Most atheist I know of has searched extensively for God and found nothing, Universal Mind is a prime example. Which of the following is true for you?

• A) I have exhausted my investigation for God and I found nothing. So I still don't know, which means my beliefs has not changed.
  
• B) I have exhausted my investigation for God and I found nothing. I conclude that there is no God.
  
• C) I have never searched.

The article also states..

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god.

This statement within itself is "choice" driven. How exactly can a child seek to know something he/she has no knowledge of? The bottom line is this, Kingerman is asking the right question. Atheism is a "choice", and a decision that's ultimately acted upon. It's not something we enter into when we are born. If anything, neither the concept of theism or atheism exist to a child's mind. In actuality you're born "weak agnosticism." Saying we are all born atheist just sounds ridiculous and silly.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Atheism is just a lack of belief in a deity or gods. You're describing the feelings that have become associated with the word.

You have a lack of belief in God or any deity because you've made an educated decision which more than likely lead you to the belief that a God or diety doesn't seem plausible or logical to you. How can a infant, toddler, or child make a positive evaluation as you have done, if they have no direct knowledge to propose any type of comprehensible decision? Is that not more than just weak agnosticism? There is no way that you have not made a type of reflection in your thinking which tells you that any theistic argument simply doesn't seem rational to you. That's why there is a difference in lacking belief, and understanding why some belief is implausible.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I'm going to have to disagrees with both of these points. Everyone is not born atheist. A child simply does not have the knowledge capacity to make any type of "choice."

...Therefore it lacks a belief in a god, therefore it is atheist.

So which one best fits you Bonsay?


A) I have exhausted my investigation for God and I found nothing. So I still don't know, which means my beliefs has not changed.
B) I have exhausted my investigation for God and I found nothing. I conclude that there is no God.
C) I have never searched.

God, religion, deities, and the like are all human constructions. If a child is not educated on such subjects and remains relatively content throughout life, there is no need to search for or believe in such things. Ergo, those children born into relatively decent conditions (such that there is no need to question the cruelty of the world), that child can be considered to be "born" atheist, or at least agnostic.

A-greek prefix for "without"
theism-greek root for "religion"
atheism-without religion

C is the option that fits me.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Yeah, so since I was never taught religion, I never really saw any valid arguments for the existence of a god. To this day, I see no valid arguments.

How can you determine what's valid and whats not valid if you've never educated yourself for both sides of the material that you're debating? How can you possibly know the validity of something you've never researched? If you are truly (C) then you're close-minded, which would be a contradiction for you if you want to incorporate your beliefs in Abiogenesis.

I consider myself to be rather open-minded, in fact. I respect other people's beliefs, and I can see where they're coming from, but I still see no reason to believe. However, I see no way in which the existence of any sort of god can be disproven altogether. I'm really more of an agnostic. Believe me, though, I have seen enough of religion to know that it is not for me. I have gotten along just fine to this point in my life without religion, and I do not need it.

If you have any valid arguments in favor of the existence of a god, please, feel free to post them here. I will approach them with an open mind before shooting them down.

In all seriousness, I honestly do not need religion, and I see no reason why I should believe in any sort of supreme being or deity. As for my beliefs in abiogenesis, I fail to see how it's a contradiction. There is not much known about it now, but science marches ever closer to a solution. I have far more confidence in science than I do religion.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I consider myself to be rather open-minded, in fact. I respect other people's beliefs, and I can see where they're coming from, but I still see no reason to believe. However, I see no way in which the existence of any sort of god can be disproven altogether. I'm really more of an agnostic. Believe me, though, I have seen enough of religion to know that it is not for me. I have gotten along just fine to this point in my life without religion, and I do not need it.

Yup, you're "weak agnostic."

Originally Posted by Mario92

However, I see no way in which the existence of any sort of god can be disproven altogether.

That statement treads closely if not right at "weak agnosticism."

Originally Posted by Mario92

In all seriousness, I honestly do not need religion, and I see no reason why I should believe in any sort of supreme being or deity. As for my beliefs in abiogenesis, I fail to see how it's a contradiction. There is not much known about it now, but science marches ever closer to a solution. I have far more confidence in science than I do religion.

Except Abiogensis is not science, there is nothing scientific about it. It doesn't incorporate any scientific laws, It's pseudo-science. We haven't moved any closer to a solution since the hypothesis was first proposed. So why are you not agnostic about abiogenesis?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So which one best fits you Bonsay?


A) I have exhausted my investigation for God and I found nothing. So I still don't know, which means my beliefs has not changed.
B) I have exhausted my investigation for God and I found nothing. I conclude that there is no God.
C) I have never searched.

On an emotional/intuitive/whatever level B), but I rationally operate with A).

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

How can you determine what's valid and whats not valid if you've never educated yourself for both sides of the material that you're debating? How can you possibly know the validity of something you've never researched? If you are truly (C) then you're close-minded, which would be a contradiction for you if you want to incorporate your beliefs in Abiogenesis.

The problem is that with education or indoctrination you form a world view as a child.

ID-people say something like "A mitochondria is there to form usable energy for the cell, how can you not see the design in the purpose of there nano devices...". I just can't accept that, because my world view of the objective reality doesn't include any purpose or meaning we see in our everyday life, it is, as the name suggests, objective. I don't see that the mitochondria is in the cell so the cell has energy. The cell has the mitochondria because the ancestor of this cell managed to survive because of it's adaptation or characteristic. There is no purpose, things just happen.

Magic has never been observed. The universe follows laws. I expect the universe to have followed laws billions of years ago, so it means that I can only conclude things based on logic. We know what we have, we know it can form naturally... why should I assume a unicorn formed everything at a point in the past?

I think 'agnostic' would be the best term for infants. They don't believe in any particular God, nor do they believe that no Gods exist.

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

This 'definition' is completely fucktarded and basically just completely wrong. Why is 'God' not even part of it..?

Atheism is not a 'doctrine' in any sense. It simply means no belief in God. You may or may not believe in any of the things above. I'm an atheist and I don't believe in a couple of those.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

How can you determine what's valid and whats not valid if you've never educated yourself for both sides of the material that you're debating? How can you possibly know the validity of something you've never researched? If you are truly (C) then you're close-minded, which would be a contradiction for you if you want to incorporate your beliefs in Abiogenesis.

I think it is rather unfair to call someone close minded for rejecting god without being educated in said religion. To not believe is a choise you make with common sense. Common sense says there is no giant man in the sky watching our every move.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

On an emotional/intuitive/whatever level B), but I rationally operate with A).

If you associate yourself with B) on an emotional level/intuitive level then that makes you atheistic driven by emotions. Emotions incorporate feelings so how exactly can a child feel one way or the other about something that doesn't exist to them? Would you say that if you are in accordance with B) on an emotional level you are indeed giving an intelligent evaluation of your investigation? Or are you just conforming to feelings? Is it a rational conclusion? Is it a logical conclusion?

However, you operate rationally with A) Which is by definition "lacking belief" then you're "weak agnostic."

I would further conclude that you're an Atheist based off emotions and feelings. However you're Agnostic when it comes to rational mode of thinking pertaining any deities.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

ID-people say something like "A mitochondria is there to form usable energy for the cell, how can you not see the design in the purpose of there nano devices...". I just can't accept that, because my world view of the objective reality doesn't include any purpose or meaning we see in our everyday life, it is, as the name suggests, objective. I don't see that the mitochondria is in the cell so the cell has energy. The cell has the mitochondria because the ancestor of this cell managed to survive because of it's adaptation or characteristic. There is no purpose, things just happen.

I completely understand this and that is a rational determation you've made by intellectually asserting a thought process to come to this conclusion. But remember you're B) based off emotions, why would you think rationally regarding ID proponents but in the case of the existence of God you assert yourself to a more emotional level?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Magic has never been observed. The universe follows laws. I expect the universe to have followed laws billions of years ago, so it means that I can only conclude things based on logic. We know what we have, we know it can form naturally... why should I assume a unicorn formed everything at a point in the past?

Why would you assume abiogenesis? I would agree that the universe does follow laws however, abiogenesis doesn't conform to The Law of Bio-genesis, which makes Bio-genesis true science and abiogenesis not. Why not assume that aliens created life? Is there supported evidence for either case?

Originally Posted by Xei

I think 'agnostic' would be the best term for infants. They don't believe in any particular God, nor do they believe that no Gods exist.

I concur with this. It's more feasible than the previous assertion.

Originally Posted by Xei

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

This 'definition' is completely fucktarded and basically just completely wrong. Why is 'God' not even part of it..?

Atheism is not a 'doctrine' in any sense. It simply means no belief in God. You may or may not believe in any of the things above. I'm an atheist and I don't believe in a couple of those.

And that brings up a very good point. Why are there so many different labels of atheism? Weak vs Strong, Implicit vs Explicit, Negative vs Positive and de facto. I understand that we as people like to put labels on everything, but this is a bit to much.

Originally Posted by Sound

I think it is rather unfair to call someone close minded for rejecting god without being educated in said religion. To not believe is a choise you make with common sense. Common sense says there is no giant man in the sky watching our every move.

This supports my point exactly, Thank you Sound

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If you associate yourself with B) on an emotional level/intuitive level then that makes you atheistic driven by emotions. Emotions incorporate feelings so how exactly can a child feel one way or the other about something that doesn't exist to them? Would you say that if you are in accordance with B) on an emotional level you are indeed giving an intelligent evaluation of your investigation? Or are you just conforming to feelings? Is it a rational conclusion? Is it a logical conclusion?

However, you operate rationally with A) Which is by definition "lacking belief" then you're "weak agnostic."

I would further conclude that you're an Atheist based off emotions and feelings. However you're Agnostic when it comes to rational mode of thinking pertaining any deities.

Well this wasn't about the child really, but apparently it all depends on the definition you take. The child does lack a belief, which by some definition it makes the child an atheist and by some other it does not, I guess it's semantics at this point?

I'm only on the B level on some simplistic every day level. Whenever I want to think about something seriously I discard or try to discard any bias. So I don't conform my investigation to that position. So I'll always seriously be an agnostic atheist, which is the true "label" of any intelligent self-acclaimed atheist as far as I know.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I completely understand this and that is a rational determation you've made by intellectually asserting a thought process to come to this conclusion. But remember you're B) based off emotions, why would you think rationally regarding ID proponents but in the case of the existence of God you assert yourself to a more emotional level?

So as I explained in this post above, I don't seriously believe a god doesn't exist. So I don't think I make a positive statement on the existence of god and I claim I don't know. I'm just trying to stay true to my real self, whatever that is. All I can say that I don't see myself as some ideal formation called a soul, but an emergent entity from a network of connections, perhaps defined as imperfect on some human level. In light of this fact, I can only define myself on this subject as a little bit of A and a little bit of B, depending on the time and place.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why would you assume abiogenesis? I would agree that the universe does follow laws however, abiogenesis doesn't conform to The Law of Bio-genesis, which makes Bio-genesis true science and abiogenesis not. Why not assume that aliens created life? Is there supported evidence for either case?

If truth is what I seek then a hypothesis must be made. I have seen no proof of an alien intervention and I see a natural path as the most probable. As anything in science, we'll find out new things, whether it disproves it or not.

Instead of asking "Why would you assume abiogenesis?", shouldn't we ask "Why wouldn't you assume abiogenisis?". I understand peoples preference to one question over the other. But regarding a scientific search for answers, why is it crazy to assume that things follow and have always followed natural laws to get from one state of being to another. Is there any proof for intelligent design beside the idea that purpose transcends our subjective universe/reality?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well this wasn't about the child really, but apparently it all depends on the definition you take. The child does lack a belief, which by some definition it makes the child an atheist and by some other it does not, I guess it's semantics at this point?

Thats a great point and you're right it can become purely semantics at this point. However, what if we wanted to sink our teeth further to really get down to the heart of the issue? This is my definition of a lack of belief and I'm going to dissect it in two areas.

"Lack" - The absence of something

"Belief" - A conviction or dedication to something as accepted to be valid or true.

So basically it's just an absence of belief or something being valid or true. Is this a feasible definition for you or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I'm only on the B level on some simplistic every day level. Whenever I want to think about something seriously I discard or try to discard any bias. So I don't conform my investigation to that position. So I'll always seriously be an agnostic atheist, which is the true "label" of any intelligent self-acclaimed atheist as far as I know.

Would you not say that you make your own decisions to be more rational thinking in this area by discarding any sense of bias? Is this not a conscious decision to be this way?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

So as I explained in this post above, I don't seriously believe a god doesn't exist. So I don't think I make a positive statement on the existence of god and I claim I don't know. I'm just trying to stay true to my real self, whatever that is. All I can say that I don't see myself as some ideal formation called a soul, but an emergent entity from a network of connections, perhaps defined as imperfect on some human level. In light of this fact, I can only define myself on this subject as a little bit of A and a little bit of B, depending on the time and place.

There are some theist that has this insight as well. I'm one to believe that a soul doesn't exist. I believe there is no such thing as an immaterial part of man that goes on existing after he dies.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If truth is what I seek then a hypothesis must be made. I have seen no proof of an alien intervention and I see a natural path as the most probable. As anything in science, we'll find out new things, whether it disproves it or not.

I agree and thats the beauty of science.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Instead of asking "Why would you assume abiogenesis?", shouldn't we ask "Why wouldn't you assume abiogenisis?". I understand peoples preference to one question over the other. But regarding a scientific search for answers, why is it crazy to assume that things follow and have always followed natural laws to get from one state of being to another. Is there any proof for intelligent design beside the idea that purpose transcends our subjective universe/reality?

Well for me the probability just seems much greater that man was intelligently created opposed to humans being a product of a series of events which we happen to get lucky in an instance.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Thats a great point and you're right it can become purely semantics at this point. However, what if we wanted to sink our teeth further to really get down to the heart of the issue? This is my definition of a lack of belief and I'm going to dissect it in two areas.

"Lack" - The absence of something

"Belief" - A conviction or dedication to something as accepted to be valid or true.

So basically it's just an absence of belief or something being valid or true. Is this a feasible definition for you or am I missing something?

I perfectly understand why it's "unfair" to label a child an atheist due to the fact that he doesn't have any information or capability to understand or decide.

But if we really want to go deeper... The issue which people usually want to highlight in this "are we born atheist" question is that religion is taught. So it's more of a statement of the child's probable final standpoint rather than the one he might have at the time of birth (even though it could be according to one definition ). The idea behind saying that children are born atheist is that you won't get a predominantly theist world if nobody is taught the religion as truth when being a child. That's how I see the whole thing on a "deeper" level than semantics.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Would you not say that you make your own decisions to be more rational thinking in this area by discarding any sense of bias? Is this not a conscious decision to be this way?

It is conscious. At the same time though, I can say that we have proof on how consciousness changes under certain circumstances where the brain is effected one way or the other. I'm perfectly conscious in a dream, or under the effect of a drug, certain mental states or moods, but can come to different conclusions etc.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well for me the probability just seems much greater that man was intelligently created opposed to humans being a product of a series of events which we happen to get lucky in an instance.

Well as I said, I try to be objective on everything. Truth is relative and there are a bunch of different ways of looking at things. What you call lucky events that end up as human which are therefore improbable, I call nature a.k.a. shit happens for some reason... And the other way around, what you see as probable I see as an illogical assumption.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I'm going to have to disagrees with both of these points. Everyone is not born atheist. A child simply does not have the knowledge capacity to make any type of "choice."

The OED claims;

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/

• noun the belief that God does not exist.


Seeing as the OED is pretty much the authority on the matter, I will take that definition in its perfect stride. It is simple and to the point.

All the other jargon you quoted is from a website dedicated to propaganda for Atheists.

You should realize that there are people that want to expose and exploit everything; including beliefs. Atheism is nothing more than not having a belief in God; that is all.

Otherwise, what you about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you not an atheist for it too? Are you not also born that way? What are all of the other parallel attachments you could cling to FSM Atheism as you do regular Atheism?

Of course, there different forms of every religious belief and all ideals. However, Atheism, in its strict definition, is incredibly simplistic; no belief in God.

Arguably, all animals and things that are not human are Atheist.

Edit;

I should note that many many Atheists only "choose" to be Atheist due to lack of reason and evidence. I know that if there was clear and justifiable evidence, I would undeniably believe in God.

~

I'd like to remind everyone about the term agnostic and how it is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. That, by definition, as someone said earlier, is on a different level of meaning altogether.

agnostic

/agnostik/

• noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

• adjective relating to agnostics.

There are also slightly varying definitions of atheist/atheism depending on where you look. I'd say the Oxford definition is a little too specific.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

If you go off those definitions, then I'd say babies can be classified as atheists.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The OED claims;

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/

• noun the belief that God does not exist.


Seeing as the OED is pretty much the authority on the matter, I will take that definition in its perfect stride. It is simple and to the point.
~

Is it okay if I can break this down because this seems to be pretty vague and it's not as simple as it appears as I've seen several atheist lean in various directions with regards to the true meaning of this and I know it can go various ways. Does this mean...

A) lacking belief that the existence of God is true?

or

B) The state of just being totally and completely oblivious about something or having no cognizance of something?

Unless I'm missing something else and if so feel free to elaborate. I would concede that B) would be more relevant to your position based off this statement.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Otherwise, what you about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you not an atheist for it too? Are you not also born that way? What are all of the other parallel attachments you could cling to FSM Atheism as you do regular Atheism?

Arguably, all animals and things that are not human are Atheist.

Do you think A) works better with animals and all things that are not human or B)?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Is it okay if I can break this down because this seems to be pretty vague and it's not as simple as it appears as I've seen several atheist lean in various directions with regards to the true meaning of this and I know it can go various ways. Does this mean...

A) lacking belief that the existence of God is true?

or

B) The state of just being totally and completely oblivious about something or having no cognizance of something?

Unless I'm missing something else and if so feel free to elaborate. I would concede that B) would be more relevant to your position based off this statement.



Do you think A) works better with animals and all things that are not human or B)?

They don't look mutually exclusive to me.

Why should they be?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why should they be?

Well, my answer to the question

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Do you think A) works better with animals and all things that are not human or B)?

would be A) because of B)

So how exactly can you presuppose a disbelief in something that you are completely oblivious of? Any assertion of God has NEVER come across to you, how can you have any kind of disbelief pertaining something you've never heard of before?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

A) lacking belief that the existence of God is true?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So how exactly can you presuppose a disbelief in something that you are completely oblivious of? Any assertion of God has NEVER come across to you, how can you have any kind of disbelief pertaining something you've never heard of before?

Lack of belief=Disbelief?
That sounds like "0=-1" to me.

Originally Posted by tnemrot

Lack of belief=Disbelief?
That sounds like "0=-1" to me.

You stated that you lack the belief that the existence of God is true because you have a non-awareness, no knowledge of God. How is this possible?

Better yet, Explain it to me then. What is a "lack of belief?"