Thread: Why did you become an Atheist?

Originally Posted by Mario92

A lack of belief. Uncertainty. End of story. The opposite of belief is disbelief, but a lack of belief is not the opposite of belief.

So if there is an 'uncertainty' does this not mean that belief or disbelief is undecided?

You're uncertain rather or not God exist. It's a possibility that he may and a possibility that he may not, because uncertainty doesn't mean being sure of something.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

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?"

I don't, the animals and all things that are not human, remember we were talking about that?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

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

Now that I think about it, in some way, that's actually true, I don't know every definition of "God", therefore, I lack the belief that the existence of "God" is true because I have a non-awareness, no knowledge of "God". lol.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So if there is an 'uncertainty' does this not mean that belief or disbelief is undecided?

You're uncertain rather or not God exist. It's a possibility that he may and a possibility that he may not, because uncertainty doesn't mean being sure of something.

I agree with this statement. I do not know, I do not claim to know, and I doubt I (or anyone else) will ever know. In this current day and age, it's impossible to prove whether or not any sort of god exists.

However, for all intents and purposes, I carry out my life as would an atheist. In this sense, i can be considered a "practical atheist." I do not answer to any sort of higher power, and I have a relatively strict mindset of "what you see is what you get." There is a part of me, though, that maintains my uncertainty.

Originally Posted by tnemrot

I don't, the animals and all things that are not human, remember we were talking about that?

I was actually talking about you.

Originally Posted by tnemrot

Now that I think about it, in some way, that's actually true, I don't know every definition of "God", therefore, I lack the belief that the existence of "God" is true because I have a non-awareness, no knowledge of "God". lol.

In all sense of the word to me this is the true meaning of "lack of belief"
But on another note how true to yourself are you being? Have you ever been curious as to why people believe in God the way that they do? Have you ever been curious as to why people pray? Read the bible or do anything spiritual for that matter? Or you've just never had a curiosity because you're just simply unaware of any existence of a God.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I agree with this statement. I do not know, I do not claim to know, and I doubt I (or anyone else) will ever know. In this current day and age, it's impossible to prove whether or not any sort of god exists.

Then thats considered 'agnosticism'

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

agnostic

/agnostik/

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

• adjective relating to agnostics.

Originally Posted by Mario92

However, for all intents and purposes, I carry out my life as would an atheist. In this sense, i can be considered a "practical atheist." I do not answer to any sort of higher power, and I have a relatively strict mindset of "what you see is what you get." There is a part of me, though, that maintains my uncertainty.

As I stated before being uncertain just holds for the position that you are undecided and nothing is for certain one way or the other because it's impossible to know either way. By all means of the word this is being agnostic.

What most people think;
- Atheism=There is no way God could exist

What it is;
- Atheism=No belief in God

It is not a matter of looking at it and then deciding, "oh, there's no God" it is simply not believing in God.

We are all cotton candy fairy atheists - but you never heard of it either. Are you going to say otherwise?

Ne-yo; you're not giving room for the fact that most atheists are also skeptics who think that some things can be known but not at this time.

~

Its quite simple, atheists are rational, straight thinking individuals who see God as a hypothesis that has no evidence in its favour. Thus, atheists don't believe in God, however, if overwhelming evidence were to be presented in favour of God I would believe immediately, something Christians find very hard to do in regards to evolution. Obviously I leave a small percentage for this possiblity, but it is no greater than the percentage I leave for any random suggestion with no evidence, e.g. the FSM, Russell's green teapot or the tooth fairy.

When I came to this forum, I classed myself as agnostic because I thought it was stupid to say there is no absolutely no chance that God doesn't exist, but that's simply not what an atheist believes, atheists just don't believe in God, unless your a theist your an atheist.

Originally Posted by tnemrot

Are you implying atheism is a religion?

No but it is a belief/theory. Nobody has any beliefs/concepts upon birth (that were taught) from the external world.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Its quite simple, atheists are rational, straight thinking individuals who see God as a hypothesis that has no evidence in its favour. Thus, atheists don't believe in God, however, if overwhelming evidence were to be presented in favour of God I would believe immediately, something Christians find very hard to do in regards to evolution. Obviously I leave a small percentage for this possiblity, but it is no greater than the percentage I leave for any random suggestion with no evidence, e.g. the FSM, Russell's green teapot or the tooth fairy.

When I came to this forum, I classed myself as agnostic because I thought it was stupid to say there is no absolutely no chance that God doesn't exist, but that's simply not what an atheist believes, atheists just don't believe in God, unless your a theist your an atheist.

Well, then, move over! I'm getting off this fence! Atheism, here I come!

but then..can you be an atheist but still believe in spirituality? such as there being no gods, but there is still something after death?

but then..can you be an atheist but still believe in spirituality? such as there being no gods, but there is still something after death?

Well, seeing as the definition for atheism is lack of belief in a god, I guess you could believe in something after death since that wouldn't neccesarely have to be related to a god of some sort.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What most people think;
- Atheism=There is no way God could exist

This mode of thinking can be excluded from further discussion in this area. As we both can assert this statement is a false assessment of Atheism. I'm willing to concur with this.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What it is;
- Atheism=No belief in God

It is not a matter of looking at it and then deciding, "oh, there's no God" it is simply not believing in God.

So it's a strict unshakable determination that God does not exist right?

Or are you implying "no belief" in the sense that you just don't care one way or the other about a God or if he does or does not exist? Or are you implying no belief in the sense that you have a non-awareness of God? Once again I think your position is the latter based off this...

Originally Posted by O'nus

We are all cotton candy fairy atheists - but you never heard of it either. Are you going to say otherwise?

This is a non-awareness to me because I've never heard of a 'cotton candy fairy atheist' until now. However, given the fact that I've never heard of this term nor do I know of it's existence, how would it be possible for me to not believe in it? Let alone ever think of it's possibilities? I'm completely and ultimately oblivious to this. Can I argue against it's background and any related information pertaining to cotton candy fairy atheists if I've never known of it's existence?

Now, I'll show you how this looks a different way and you can analysis this for what it is.

Considering I've never heard of a cotton candy fairy atheist until a few minutes ago, would you agree that I could not categorize or make an assessment of it a week ago? Can you make a determination about something you're completely oblivious to? Is this even possible? However now that I've been told about Cotton Candy fairy Atheist, I can then categorize it. I will make an determination of it and categorize it based off the following.

Cotton Candy Fairy Atheist are..

• True
• False
• Undetermined
• Absurd

Which of the following would be the most logical area to categorize Cotton Candy Fairy Atheist for me?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ne-yo; you're not giving room for the fact that most atheists are also skeptics who think that some things can be known but not at this time.

I know there are some atheist skeptics and they call themselves agnostic atheists which is even more absurd to me. I know for a fact you're not one of them. So we can just stick to your position.

• The belief that God does not exist

There should be absolutely no skepticism here.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Its quite simple, atheists are rational, straight thinking individuals who see God as a hypothesis that has no evidence in its favour. Thus, atheists don't believe in God,

That sounds like true Atheism to me.

Originally Posted by imran_P

however, if overwhelming evidence were to be presented in favour of God I would believe immediately, something Christians find very hard to do in regards to evolution.

You've just made a huge contradiction. You just gave way for a 'possibility' when in the first quote you stated that by all rational means there is no evidence meaning no possibilities whatsoever. You see how ridiculous it starts to appear?

Originally Posted by imran_P

Obviously I leave a small percentage for this possiblity, but it is no greater than the percentage I leave for any random suggestion with no evidence, e.g. the FSM, Russell's green teapot or the tooth fairy.

Do you think giving a small or big percentage for possibilities make a difference? A possibility is a possibility, it doesn't change no matter how great or small the possibility is.

Originally Posted by imran_P

When I came to this forum, I classed myself as agnostic because I thought it was stupid to say there is no absolutely no chance that God doesn't exist, but that's simply not what an atheist believes, atheists just don't believe in God, unless your a theist your an atheist.

and to me you appear to be agnostic.

I dropped from the realm of agnosticism once I realized that my wishful thoughts regarding Justice and Afterlife were just those: wishful thoughts.

Or are you implying "no belief" in the sense that you just don't care one way or the other about a God or if he does or does not exist? Or are you implying no belief in the sense that you have a non-awareness of God? Once again I think your position is the latter based off this...

Atheism can take many forms:

Active rejection of theism - "there is no God!".

Skeptical rejection of theism - "I see no (good) reason to believe in God"

Implicit atheism - "I have no idea and haven't given the subject any thought" or "I've never heard about any religion" or "I don't care about the subject". Everyone is born as an implicit atheist.

I've never heard of this term nor do I know of it's existence, how would it be possible for me to not believe in it?

Easy, the default position of any positive claim that is not proven is disbelief. Even if one has never come across the idea, or indeed has no idea of whether it is true or not.

I know there are some atheist skeptics and they call themselves agnostic atheists which is even more absurd to me

There's nothing absurd about it. If something can't be logically proven, then you can't claim absolute and definitive knowledge on it, no matter how likely or unlikely. In practice this is unneeded because the weight of evidence is so great, so people can say stuff like "The Earth is round" or "DNA has a double helix structure". It's treated as being true for pragmatic reasons, but technically saying it's true would be incorrect. So philosophically, the only rational position would be an agnostic round-earthist. And that's for things we can actually prove!

When you talk about stuff that's unprovable, the only rational position is agnosticism if the idea is logically coherent.

Similarly with theism. I treat is as if it isn't true, and in cases may simplify my position as "there is no god", because it's easier than saying "I'm 99.999% sure there is no god but will change my mind given good enough evidence".

Do you think giving a small or big percentage for possibilities make a difference? A possibility is a possibility, it doesn't change no matter how great or small the possibility is.

The number does make a difference, and it absolutely does matter what this possibility is. If I believed the Christian God had a 50% chance of existing, it would make a huge difference to how I go about things.

By that logic we should all be terrified of being hit by lightning because the possibility exists, no matter how small. Clearly such a stance is completely irrational; very few people get hit by lightning.

Just because something is possible, that by itself is still no good reason to treat it as if it is realistically likely to happen. The odds have to be sufficiently high for that.

Well said photolysis. I concur.

~

To say someone isn't athiest would be actually pretty dumb.

I mean, do Christians believe in Zeus? No, so they're athiest to Zeus. Do they believe in Shiva (sp)? Or the flying spaghetti monster? Nope.

I became an athiest recently after sitting down, thinking hard about it for a few months, and concluding there simply wasn't enough there for me to believe in a God.

Well since O'nus has obviously took a back seat on this, I'll discuss this with you.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Atheism can take many forms:

Active rejection of theism - "there is no God!".

What would this statement be based upon regarding the rejection?

• Logic
• Lack of evidence
• Evidence
• Doubt
• Faith
• Combination of all

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Skeptical rejection of theism "I see no (good) reason to believe in God"

With this one are you willing to concede that although no good reason is here now that 'you' can see, however, there is a possibility that good reason could come in the future?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Implicit atheism "I have no idea and haven't given the subject any thought" or "I've never heard about any religion" or "I don't care about the subject". Everyone is born as an implicit atheist.

With this one, how is this different than agnosticism?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Easy, the default position of any positive claim that is not proven is disbelief. Even if one has never come across the idea, or indeed has no idea of whether it is true or not.

The first half makes a lot of sense and i will agree that the default position of any positive claim that is not proven would be disbelief. However, If the claim of something never entered into your conscious and you are completely oblivious to that claim how can you have disbelief? If it's unknown and you are not aware consciously of that particular claim then how can you categorize the unknown?

Better yet I'll put it this way. We when make decision upon something to decided rather something is positive or false we are acting consciously to make a determination regarding which category this falls into. We act only on things we are aware of. We do not act on things we are unaware of. I have a question for you.

On January 1st 2000 what was your opinion about September 11 2001? Were you in disbelief about 9/11 and the attack on the World Trade Centers?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

There's nothing absurd about it. If something can't be logically proven, then even it's stupid to claim absolute definitive knowledge on it, no matter how likely or unlikely. In practice this is unneeded because the weight of evidence is so great, so people can say stuff like "The Earth is round" or "DNA has a double helix structure". It's treated as being true for pragmatic reasons, but technically saying it's true would be incorrect. So philosophically, the only rational position would be an agnostic round-earthist.

I understand that this is an agnostic position what I don't understand is how does the disbelief in the unknown tie into this?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

The number does make a difference, and it absolutely does matter what this possibility is. If I believed the Christian God had a 50% chance of existing, it would make a huge difference.

By that logic we should all be terrified of being hit by lightning because the possibility exists, no matter how small. Clearly such a stance is completely irrational; very few people get hit by lightning.

Perhaps very few people get hit by lightening the fact that you have to come to terms with is no matter how small the number is with people getting hit by lightening, people indeed "DO" get hit by lightening.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Just because something is possible, that by itself is still no good reason to treat it as if it is realistically likely to happen. The odds have to be sufficiently high for that.

Really? This is Cloud to Ground Lightening.



Would you continue to stand outside while this is unfolding around you, giving the odds that you'll get hit by one?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well since O'nus has obviously took a back seat on this, I'll discuss this with you.

He basically said what I would have said. Do not take any disrespect, I just wanted to keep things simple.

What would this statement be based upon regarding the rejection?

• Logic
• Lack of evidence
• Evidence
• Doubt
• Faith
• Combination of all

Active rejection of theism, or as I would call "Fundamentalist Atheist" is simply not believing in God no matter what. There is no possibility that God exists, and that is that.

I use fundamentalist for all beliefs in the idea that they believe they are right no matter what evidence is provided. This is applicable to Atheists to; all humans can easily be assholes you know.

With this one are you willing to concede that although no good reason is here now that 'you' can see, however, there is a possibility that good reason could come in the future?

Yes! That is right! This is Atheism as most of us Atheists see it. Even Richard Dawkins would agree.

With this one, how is this different than agnosticism?

Remember, Agnosticism is the belief that there is no way to ever know or understand the idea of God, etc. Implicit Atheism is really just that if you do not know about it, you are Atheist by default because you do not believe in it because you know nothing of it.

I could easily "Choose" to believe or not believe in something, which seems to be your argument. However, I think we would like to believe that we employ logical approaches to things so that we simply do not go, "Oh now I am Muslim.. naw wait, now I am a Jew. Naw screw it, I'm buddhist.. oh wait, Zeus is cool, I want to believe in him now". In that world, all illogical thinking goes. It is best we employ some sort of logical approach to the world. Right?

The first half makes a lot of sense and i will agree that the default position of any positive claim that is not proven would be disbelief. However, If the claim of something never entered into your conscious and you are completely oblivious to that claim how can you have disbelief? If it's unknown and you are not aware consciously of that particular claim then how can you categorize the unknown?

You are assuming that a person must make the choice to become Atheist as opposed to the fact that Atheism is really just "no belief in God" and that is all. Not an active thought process of "Fuck God - he does not exist" of some sort.

Better yet I'll put it this way. We when make decision upon something to decided rather something is positive or false we are acting consciously to make a determination regarding which category this falls into. We act only on things we are aware of. We do not act on things we are unaware of. I have a question for you.

See this is the very reason why I, as an Atheist, am still open to the idea of God.

On January 1st 2000 what was your opinion about September 11 2001? Were you in disbelief about 9/11 and the attack on the World Trade Centers?

Not touching that with a 20-ft pole.

Perhaps very few people get hit by lightening the fact that you have to come to terms with is no matter how small the number is with people getting hit by lightening, people indeed "DO" get hit by lightening.

If we were to base this whole probability thing properly, then it ought to be put as such;

- Probabilistically, no God in the past has been proven to be true.
- We have never known a God to be proven true
- We have no real method to rate a probability on God as it has never been demonstrated

Now, I am not sure how to really state this in statistics. Maybe someone can correct me but;

Ought then the probability be next to nothing? I mean, this is as probable as you being immortal. We have never known or have evidence of someone being immortal, but you could arguably say that "it is still possible!". Well yes, and it is also possible that one day that 2+2=5. Does that mean that we ought to completely change our lives based on that incredibly small percentage?

Maybe you ought to consider that, in response to that still remaining probability, there is an astronomical higher probability that it is wrong!

Really? This is Cloud to Ground Lightening.

Would you continue to stand outside while this is unfolding around you, giving the odds that you'll get hit by one?

What is this..? Crude Debating Tactics 101?

Would you really think it fair if I posted the following to illustrate a point;


Come on now. It's silly. Don't do that.

(Note; I am utilizing the above picture to demonstrate bad debating tactics. I in no way am implying that creationists are stupider than retards.)

~

What would this statement be based upon regarding the rejection?

Depends. You can logically dismiss self-contradictory ideas just fine (certain gods and religious ideas fit in to this category). But to completely 100% dismiss the general idea of a god (i.e. one without any self-contradictions), you can't do that on evidence alone. Going that extra mile from 99.999% certainty to 100% is faith.

With this one are you willing to concede that although no good reason is here now that 'you' can see, however, there is a possibility that good reason could come in the future?

I find the possibility of such unlikely (I put it on a par with discovering unicorns), but yes, there is that possibility. And if that happens I'll be more than happy to revise my beliefs on the matter accordingly.

With this one, how is this different than agnosticism?

It's still agnostic atheism, just it differentiates between whether someone has consciously rejected an idea or not. For the most part it doesn't matter too much, though it does therefore mean that religion is a conscious choice (assuming one was not indoctrinated) and therefore demands it must be justified; the burden of proof is on religion.

However, If the claim of something never entered into your conscious and you are completely oblivious to that claim how can you have disbelief? If it's unknown and you are not aware consciously of that particular claim then how can you categorize the unknown?

You disbelieve it automatically due to the fact you don't believe it to be true. It's implicit disbelief, instead of conscious rejection, but still disbelief.

Though you can actually be aware of something whilst still being an implicit disbeliever; I know someone who knows of the concept of religion but still has not given the issue any thought (it doesn't concern him). So it's still a known concept.

If you're talking about unknown concepts then the person in question isn't doing the one categorising. If X doesn't believe in the FSM because he hasn't come across the idea, it's Y that categorises X's disbelief on the matter.

On January 1st 2000 what was your opinion about September 11 2001? Were you in disbelief about 9/11 and the attack on the World Trade Centers?

It never crossed my mind at that point, but yes, I obviously didn't believe that 9/11 would occur at that time; it automatically lies in the disbelief category.

Perhaps very few people get hit by lightening the fact that you have to come to terms with is no matter how small the number is with people getting hit by lightening, people indeed "DO" get hit by lightening.

Yes, people do get hit by lightning, you're right. We have plenty of evidence of this, which stands up on its own. Religion does not do this, but I don't want to take the analogy too far here. The aim was to indicate that the value of the probability does matter a lot when it comes to our behaviour and how we deal with things.

Would you continue to stand outside while this is unfolding around you, giving the odds that you'll get hit by one?

That's changing the situation. We're talking about the odds of the average person being hit by lightning. Obviously if you decide to stand on top of the tallest lightning conductor you can find, that's going to make being hit far more likely than normal.

The average person is very unlikely to be hit by lightning, and as such should not fear it happening as the odds of it are highly unlikely.

The average person is very unlikely to be hit by lightning, and as such should not fear it happening as the odds of it are highly unlikely.

Tell that to the person who git hit by lightening from a storm that was miles away.
Seriously, it happened! But you are right.

Originally Posted by Loaf

Tell that to the person who git hit by lightening from a storm that was miles away.
Seriously, it happened! But you are right.

ODDS OF BECOMING A LIGHTNING VICTIM
U.S. 2000 Census population as of 20080 - 300,000,000
Number of Deaths Actually Reported - 58
Number of Injuries Reported 340 (400)
Estimated number of actual U.S. Deaths 70
Estimated number of actual Injuries 540 (600)
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (reported deaths + injuries) 1/700,000
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (estimated total deaths + injuries) 1/400,000
Odds of being struck in your lifetime (Est. 80 years) 1/5000
Odds you will be affected by someone being struck (Ten people affected for every one struck) 1/500

Source:
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

~

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

However, If the claim of something never entered into your conscious and you are completely oblivious to that claim how can you have disbelief?

I don't think it's quite that way, it's not belief, or disbelief you have, it's the lack of a belief. Sorry for repeating myself, but I just wanted to point that out.

Originally Posted by Loaf

I became an athiest recently after sitting down, thinking hard about it for a few months, and concluding there simply wasn't enough there for me to believe in a God.

Good for you, Loaf! Also, welcome to the R/S forum!

Originally Posted by O'nus

Active rejection of theism, or as I would call "Fundamentalist Atheist" is simply not believing in God no matter what. There is no possibility that God exists, and that is that.

For an Atheist to make this statement "there is no possibility that God exists, I do not believe in a God" is a conscious decision. What is this decision based upon?

• Logic
• Lack of evidence
• Evidence
• Doubt
• Faith
• Combination of all
• Nothing at all

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes! That is right! This is Atheism as most of us Atheists see it. Even Richard Dawkins would agree.

So you believe there is a possibility that God may indeed exist. At this point would you not say that you're agnostic concerning the existence of God? Is this position consistent with Fundamentalist Atheist or not?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Remember, Agnosticism is the belief that there is no way to ever know or understand the idea of God, etc. Implicit Atheism is really just that if you do not know about it, you are Atheist by default because you do not believe in it because you know nothing of it.

If this is the case then you cannot have a disbelief in the unknown either. So once again this is in a state of being completely oblivious having a complete non-awareness of something. Can a Implicit Atheist argue against any material that relates to God?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I could easily "Choose" to believe or not believe in something, which seems to be your argument. However, I think we would like to believe that we employ logical approaches to things so that we simply do not go, "Oh now I am Muslim.. naw wait, now I am a Jew. Naw screw it, I'm buddhist.. oh wait, Zeus is cool, I want to believe in him now". In that world, all illogical thinking goes. It is best we employ some sort of logical approach to the world. Right?

I agree and in the same sense that we do not act upon things that that we are completely oblivious to which in that world all illogical thinking goes.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are assuming that a person must make the choice to become Atheist as opposed to the fact that Atheism is really just "no belief in God" and that is all. Not an active thought process of "Fuck God - he does not exist" of some sort.

How is it not a thought process and/or determination if someone says this. "There is no possibility that God exists" Is that not a conscious assertion? Otherwise this behavior is simply without reason which is completely illogical.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If we were to base this whole probability thing properly, then it ought to be put as such;

- Probabilistically, no God in the past has been proven to be true.
- We have never known a God to be proven true
- We have no real method to rate a probability on God as it has never been demonstrated

Now, I am not sure how to really state this in statistics. Maybe someone can correct me but;

Ought then the probability be next to nothing? I mean, this is as probable as you being immortal. We have never known or have evidence of someone being immortal, but you could arguably say that "it is still possible!". Well yes, and it is also possible that one day that 2+2=5. Does that mean that we ought to completely change our lives based on that incredibly small percentage?

Is there not an incredibly small percentage supporting certain areas of abiogenesis? Unfortunately, I do not have any numbers to present as I'm not even sure it's calculable which furthermore shows me that even astronomically incomprehensible odds can change people lives, because if not we wouldn't have people like Urey and Miller.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Maybe you ought to consider that, in response to that still remaining probability, there is an astronomical higher probability that it is wrong!

Consider also that there is an extremely high probability that Abiogenesis is wrong as well but scientist still seem to be searching for answers are they not?

Originally Posted by O'nus

(Note; I am utilizing the above picture to demonstrate bad debating tactics. I in no way am implying that creationists are stupider than retards.)

Nice, We can move pass this little piece then.