Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[Eudaimonist]

Not at all. Christianity says a life which does not believe in Jesus (is God), has no value, zero value.

Sounds tyrannical.

It explains the mindset of the Inquisition well enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Huh? How did you get that out of what I wrote? Please explain what you thought I meant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You said the "value" set for a time longer than our lifetime (so called the moral) may not be equal to the value used in our lifetime. So if the moral said: do not steal. But if I starved, then I am justified to steal or even rob.

 

[juvenissun]

It explains the mindset of the Inquisition well enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This is the problem I see. You reject the statement based on its surficial meaning. That is why I say that atheist has no curiosity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is the problem I see. You reject the statement based on its surficial meaning. That is why I say that atheist has no curiosity.

Please stop that. I can only reply to what you write. I'm not a mindreader. If you wish to correct my understanding of what you write, please do so.

And keep in mind that YOU jumped to a false conclusion about what I meant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dharma Wheel]

If the reason is so obvious, why can't we deal with it yet after thousands of years? It is so obvious that we did not find the real reason.

Because governments and the rich frankly do not care about the poor (especially not the poor in other countries to their own).

 

[Eudaimonist]

You said the "value" set for a time longer than our lifetime (so called the moral) may not be equal to the value used in our lifetime. So if the moral said: do not steal. But if I starved, then I am justified to steal or even rob.

This is what I wrote:

Agreed, but while a standard may exceed the lifetime of any one individual (because it may equally apply to future human beings), there is no need for any individual to equal the "lifetime" (or applicability) of the standard. The finality of death does not invalidate any standard.

You seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote, but that is probably my fault. I'll try to explain less tersely.

My point was that a standard of moral value for human beings applies to any human being at any time in history because they are human beings, and is therefore "eternal" in the sense that as long as a human being exists, the standard applies -- even if a human being were to exist a billion years into our future.

However, just because the standard has such an amazing scope of applicability (which I referred to in scare quotes as its "lifetime"), that doesn't mean that human beings must have eternal lives. The standard applies to any human life for the entire duration of that life. Nothing about the scope of the standard means that a particular human being must have the same scope.

Is that any clearer?

So it is definitely not the case that you may decide to rape someone just because you have only a few minutes to live. The standard will apply to you until the final instant of your lifetime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rasta]

You don't know what is right. But you know atheism is right. I don't see an honesty there.

Of course that is your opinion. Atheism means disbelief. I do not claim to possess knowledge, where as you do.

 

[Rasta]

Not at all. Christianity says a life which does not believe in Jesus (is God), has no value, zero value.

Sounds tyrannical. But it has a theology behind this simple conclusion. For example, the word "value" is yet to be defined.

So much for a loving and caring god.

 

[juvenissun]

This is what I wrote:

Agreed, but while a standard may exceed the lifetime of any one individual (because it may equally apply to future human beings), there is no need for any individual to equal the "lifetime" (or applicability) of the standard. The finality of death does not invalidate any standard.

You seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote, but that is probably my fault. I'll try to explain less tersely.

My point was that a standard of moral value for human beings applies to any human being at any time in history because they are human beings, and is therefore "eternal" in the sense that as long as a human being exists, the standard applies -- even if a human being were to exist a billion years into our future.

However, just because the standard has such an amazing scope of applicability (which I referred to in scare quotes as its "lifetime"), that doesn't mean that human beings must have eternal lives. The standard applies to any human life for the entire duration of that life. Nothing about the scope of the standard means that a particular human being must have the same scope.

Is that any clearer?

So it is definitely not the case that you may decide to rape someone just because you have only a few minutes to live. The standard will apply to you until the final instant of your lifetime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Got you. Thanks for the clarification.

So we have a few standard values that last through human history. Is it right to think that all atheists agree with these values? I don't think so. I think atheism has many standards and not everyone agreed on some of them. For example, some atheists may challenge the one which says: one should not steal (or rob). At least I can, if I pretended to be an atheist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So we have a few standard values that last through human history. Is it right to think that all atheists agree with these values?

Perhaps not, but I don't see the problem here. Theists often disagree on value issues as well. They can't even agree on how many gods exist.

I think atheism has many standards and not everyone agreed on some of them. For example, some atheists may challenge the one which says: one should not steal (or rob). At least I can, if I pretended to be an atheist.

Anyone may challenge anything. E.g., Luciferans may challenge Christian values. Flat Earthers may challenge the round Earth theory. Creationists may challenge Science.

It doesn't matter if someone chooses to challenge something. The ability of someone to challenge something does not imply that the thing challenged is based on arbitrariness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Perhaps not, but I don't see the problem here. Theists often disagree on value issues as well. They can't even agree on how many gods exist.



Anyone may challenge anything. E.g., Luciferans may challenge Christian values. Flat Earthers may challenge the round Earth theory. Creationists may challenge Science.

It doesn't matter if someone chooses to challenge something. The ability of someone to challenge something does not imply that the thing challenged is based on arbitrariness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So, that is my point. I do not want to be in a belief (e.g. atheism, you may call it a "disbelief". It is the same), that my belief on any single idea is constantly challenged by others with the same belief. That is very frustrating. It make one does not know what is right and what is wrong and it may ended up like anything goes as long as "I" like to do it (and can get away from it).

 

[Penumbra]

Not at all. Christianity says a life which does not believe in Jesus (is God), has no value, zero value.

Sounds tyrannical. But it has a theology behind this simple conclusion. For example, the word "value" is yet to be defined.

Can you explain what value that a life which believes in Jesus has? What value does it have compared to someone who does not believe?

So, that is my point. I do not want to be in a belief (e.g. atheism, you may call it a "disbelief". It is the same), that my belief on any single idea is constantly challenged by others with the same belief. That is very frustrating. It make one does not know what is right and what is wrong and it may ended up like anything goes as long as "I" like to do it (and can get away from it).

Any well-known stance is challenged from within. Just look at Christian history. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Existentialism, Deism, all are challenged by some, because each of these has millions of people in agreement.

If you view a lack of belief in something as a "belief", then you're defining a worldview in which someone cannot escape from belief, which means you cannot escape from challenge, which creates for yourself a world of frustration, as you say.

-Lyn

 

[juvenissun]

Can you explain what value that a life which believes in Jesus has? What value does it have compared to someone who does not believe?

I appreciate your question.

The only value of this life is to prepare your future life with God. The reason is very obvious: this life has only a few tens of years, but the life after this life is eternal. If one's eternal life is not with God, then what is the value of it? If the eternal life has no value, then this short worldly life will not have value either.

The above logic is based on two premises: there is a God and there is a life after this life. In fact, the first one is enough. The second one is a necessary consequence of the first one. But if one does not recognize the first one at the beginning, the second one is a good step toward it.

The content of the logic is: A God should have a certain properties. Otherwise, he is not a God.

To me, the above concept can answer ANY question which an atheist can not answer.

 

[Super_Rational]

Not at all. Christianity says a life which does not believe in Jesus (is God), has no value, zero value.

Sounds tyrannical. But it has a theology behind this simple conclusion. For example, the word "value" is yet to be defined.

If you actually believe that, then I have no idea why you would suggest an atheist explore the idea of a god, even if it's not the christian god. Earlier you said any god of any religion. In other words, it sure doesn't seem as if you put any other religion any higher than atheism. Maybe you don't really believe what you wrote earlier, then.

Btw, I think what you've written in the quote above all too often leads to a superiority complex among christians towards non-christians. This is certainly the attitude I've experienced many times. But, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Super_Rational]

So, please give me your best reasons of being an atheist. You may start with the most convincing one.

Thanks.

Guess I'll finally answer the OP more directly (if this is actually what you were asking for). Some reasons for being an atheist, off the top of my head, & in no particular order. Here goes...

- The sheer number of different, conflicting religions worldwide which all have devout followers.
- The fact that we have actually observed the formation of religions recently (scientology, mormonism).
- The large number of past religions which are essentially extinct.
- The many different denominations within a single religion with huge variations between them, all which have their own doctrines, rituals, & of course conflicting beliefs. Each have very devout followers who think they are right & others are wrong.
- Single denominations that have huge disagreements (episcopalians, for example).
- The FACT that religion is largely dependent on where someone is raised & not some "divine" truth.
- Bringing up children to believe christianity is true & everything else is false (brainwashing). Necessary to keep religion alive?
- The many stories in the bible, & especially the old testament, that so strongly conflict with everything we know about the world including history & science. The creation, fall of man, jonah & the whale, the virgin birth of jesus, the flood (why didn't all the fish/marine life die from the change in the water?), etc. These big-time miracles just don't seem to happen anymore. Nowadays "miracles" are hardly discernible from pure chance or coincidence. This is where it all started for me.
- Religion & the "god of the gaps," & religions all-to-often anti-science stances. Some religions siding with science while twisting their doctrines to fit, others denouncing outright those theories which may have theological consequences.
- Religion encourages belief without evidence, or belief with no good reason to believe. That is the essence of faith.
- The many scientific explanations for life's origins, life's variety of species, our earth, the planets, etc., exist & provide solid evidence to back them up (even if religious deniers close their eyes & cover their ears). But just b/c it's difficult for laymen to grasp them or even be aware of them doesn't mean they do not exist.
- The emotional & communal or social attachment to religious organizations & churches. Take this away & quite a bit is lost.
- Manipulation during church services, church camps, etc by emotional music & word-smith pastors. They also often prey on the weak-minded, scared, down-trodden, etc.
- Propagation of fear or scaring people into believing. Hell can be an influential motivator in the prevention of doubt. This fear prevents sound reasoning & questioning & also promotes paranoia w/in believers regarding those who may have different beliefs.
- Outdated/strict rules regarding health, diet, etc. (Kosher foods, for example)
- Religion being pushed in government where it's not welcome & its consequences.
- Divisiveness of religious beliefs, be they inter or intrareligious beliefs.
- Lying for jesus & revising history for jesus (David Barton, for example).
- Lack of evidence for any of the claims made by the religious regarding anything supernatural. (existence of the soul, heaven, hell, prayer more than just talking to yourself, etc.) And no, near death experiences too similar to trips on drugs, dreams, etc. & vary depending on a person's background.
- How gods or goddesses always appear to made in the image of man, not the other way around.
- christians always knowing what god wants even though the same people will claim god cannot be understood or fathomed. What their god "wants" too often coincides with what the person wants.
- No one can answer the question about where or what made god. Sorry, god existing forever outside of space & time or whatever just doesn't cut it. For example, when people believe that something is so complex it must have had a designer (the circulatory system & "irreducible complexity"), yet god (which would have to be more complex than the complex thing it created) is so conveniently not required to meet this requirement.
- Humans being made in the image of god. So does god have male or female anatomy? Or both? Why do most people believe god is a man? What's the purpose of god being a male or female if it can't reproduce sexually? Is god a formless blob? Never heard anything but shuffling & inconsistent answers with this one.
- Inconsistencies & contradictions in the bible. People can't agree on whether it's infallible or not, what's allegory & what's literal. Anyone can make any verse fit any occasion.
- Let's not forget the many versions of the bible.
- God loves us so much that he will torture us for eternity for simply not believing & not groveling. And no, "turn or burn" does not represent a fair choice. (of course, christians can't agree on this.)
- How a god could supposedly fix everything on earth, but waits to see if we will on our own "free will." That is...even though he supposedly already knows everything from the past, present, & future. God must not be that smart or just easily confused.
- Similarities between santa, the easter bunny, etc. to gods & other religious icons.
- The FACT that I can live a moral, happy, fulfilling life while also believing the supernatural is nothing but superstition.

This is just off the top of my head as I'm typing & in no way represents a complete list of reasons.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, that is my point. I do not want to be in a belief (e.g. atheism, you may call it a "disbelief". It is the same), that my belief on any single idea is constantly challenged by others with the same belief. That is very frustrating. It make one does not know what is right and what is wrong and it may ended up like anything goes as long as "I" like to do it (and can get away from it).

You clam to have been an atheist, but it appears that you don't understand what atheism even is. It is not a unified belief system (and doesn't even refer to one), any more than "theism" is a unified belief system. Only specific religions or specific nontheistic philosophies can be belief systems.

The atheists who disagree with my ethics are not members of my belief system. They are not members of my ethical group. I share nothing in common with them except a lack of belief in divine beings.

I personally have no trouble distinguishing right from wrong. It doesn't matter to me if there are atheists who are utilitarians, or Kantians, or social contractarians, or whatever other ethical views they might have, because they are not advocates of my philosophical path.

My nontheistic belief system is what I and some others call Eudaimonism. My belief system is not "atheism". Yes, I am an atheist. However, atheism is just a position on one lonely, solitary issue, not a system of beliefs unto itself.

I don't care one tiny bit what other atheists may think on ethics, just as I'll bet you don't care one tiny little bit what theistic Satanists and Luciferans think, or what pagans might think, or what animists might think, etc. If they disagree with you, that won't make you think your ethics is arbitrary or unjustified.

It sounds to me like, if you truly were an atheist, then you had never had adopted or developed a consistent worldview. You confused your lack of belief in god for a belief system that you incorrectly thought that other atheists ought to share. You were like a theist who believes in some sort of vague divine presence out there somewhere, but had never figured out what religion or theology to believe in.

You are criticizing only a very weak form of atheist, and not the best of what atheists have to offer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

If you actually believe that, then I have no idea why you would suggest an atheist explore the idea of a god, even if it's not the christian god. Earlier you said any god of any religion. In other words, it sure doesn't seem as if you put any other religion any higher than atheism. Maybe you don't really believe what you wrote earlier, then.

Btw, I think what you've written in the quote above all too often leads to a superiority complex among christians towards non-christians. This is certainly the attitude I've experienced many times. But, ignorance is bliss.

I am a scientist. So I take everything one step at a time and not jumping to the goal. This is my weakness, but it could also be my strength.

So, the way to talk to an atheist, for me, is FIRST, to talk about life after life. All religions address this problem.

 

[juvenissun]

Guess I'll finally answer the OP more directly (if this is actually what you were asking for). Some reasons for being an atheist, off the top of my head, & in no particular order. Here goes...

- The sheer number of different, conflicting religions worldwide which all have devout followers.
- The fact that we have actually observed the formation of religions recently (scientology, mormonism).
- The large number of past religions which are essentially extinct.
- The many different denominations within a single religion with huge variations between them, all which have their own doctrines, rituals, & of course conflicting beliefs. Each have very devout followers who think they are right & others are wrong.
- Single denominations that have huge disagreements (episcopalians, for example).
- The FACT that religion is largely dependent on where someone is raised & not some "divine" truth.
- Bringing up children to believe christianity is true & everything else is false (brainwashing). Necessary to keep religion alive?
- The many stories in the bible, & especially the old testament, that so strongly conflict with everything we know about the world including history & science. The creation, fall of man, jonah & the whale, the virgin birth of jesus, the flood (why didn't all the fish/marine life die from the change in the water?), etc. These big-time miracles just don't seem to happen anymore. Nowadays "miracles" are hardly discernible from pure chance or coincidence. This is where it all started for me.
- Religion & the "god of the gaps," & religions all-to-often anti-science stances. Some religions siding with science while twisting their doctrines to fit, others denouncing outright those theories which may have theological consequences.
- Religion encourages belief without evidence, or belief with no good reason to believe. That is the essence of faith.
- The many scientific explanations for life's origins, life's variety of species, our earth, the planets, etc., exist & provide solid evidence to back them up (even if religious deniers close their eyes & cover their ears). But just b/c it's difficult for laymen to grasp them or even be aware of them doesn't mean they do not exist.
- The emotional & communal or social attachment to religious organizations & churches. Take this away & quite a bit is lost.
- Manipulation during church services, church camps, etc by emotional music & word-smith pastors. They also often prey on the weak-minded, scared, down-trodden, etc.
- Propagation of fear or scaring people into believing. Hell can be an influential motivator in the prevention of doubt. This fear prevents sound reasoning & questioning & also promotes paranoia w/in believers regarding those who may have different beliefs.
- Outdated/strict rules regarding health, diet, etc. (Kosher foods, for example)
- Religion being pushed in government where it's not welcome & its consequences.
- Divisiveness of religious beliefs, be they inter or intrareligious beliefs.
- Lying for jesus & revising history for jesus (David Barton, for example).
- Lack of evidence for any of the claims made by the religious regarding anything supernatural. (existence of the soul, heaven, hell, prayer more than just talking to yourself, etc.) And no, near death experiences too similar to trips on drugs, dreams, etc. & vary depending on a person's background.
- How gods or goddesses always appear to made in the image of man, not the other way around.
- christians always knowing what god wants even though the same people will claim god cannot be understood or fathomed. What their god "wants" too often coincides with what the person wants.
- No one can answer the question about where or what made god. Sorry, god existing forever outside of space & time or whatever just doesn't cut it. For example, when people believe that something is so complex it must have had a designer (the circulatory system & "irreducible complexity"), yet god (which would have to be more complex than the complex thing it created) is so conveniently not required to meet this requirement.
- Humans being made in the image of god. So does god have male or female anatomy? Or both? Why do most people believe god is a man? What's the purpose of god being a male or female if it can't reproduce sexually? Is god a formless blob? Never heard anything but shuffling & inconsistent answers with this one.
- Inconsistencies & contradictions in the bible. People can't agree on whether it's infallible or not, what's allegory & what's literal. Anyone can make any verse fit any occasion.
- Let's not forget the many versions of the bible.
- God loves us so much that he will torture us for eternity for simply not believing & not groveling. And no, "turn or burn" does not represent a fair choice. (of course, christians can't agree on this.)
- How a god could supposedly fix everything on earth, but waits to see if we will on our own "free will." That is...even though he supposedly already knows everything from the past, present, & future. God must not be that smart or just easily confused.
- Similarities between santa, the easter bunny, etc. to gods & other religious icons.
- The FACT that I can live a moral, happy, fulfilling life while also believing the supernatural is nothing but superstition.

This is just off the top of my head as I'm typing & in no way represents a complete list of reasons.

Thanks for taking time to give the list.

Too many reasons is sort of equivalent to no reason. If you ask me why am I a Christian, I would only give you one or two reasons. Until you can do the same to atheism, you do not, in fact, have a strong reason.

 

[juvenissun]

You clam to have been an atheist, but it appears that you don't understand what atheism even is. It is not a unified belief system (and doesn't even refer to one), any more than "theism" is a unified belief system. Only specific religions or specific nontheistic philosophies can be belief systems.

The atheists who disagree with my ethics are not members of my belief system. They are not members of my ethical group. I share nothing in common with them except a lack of belief in divine beings.

I personally have no trouble distinguishing right from wrong. It doesn't matter to me if there are atheists who are utilitarians, or Kantians, or social contractarians, or whatever other ethical views they might have, because they are not advocates of my philosophical path.

My nontheistic belief system is what I and some others call Eudaimonism. My belief system is not "atheism". Yes, I am an atheist. However, atheism is just a position on one lonely, solitary issue, not a system of beliefs unto itself.

I don't care one tiny bit what other atheists may think on ethics, just as I'll bet you don't care one tiny little bit what theistic Satanists and Luciferans think, or what pagans might think, or what animists might think, etc. If they disagree with you, that won't make you think your ethics is arbitrary or unjustified.

It sounds to me like, if you truly were an atheist, then you had never had adopted or developed a consistent worldview. You confused your lack of belief in god for a belief system that you incorrectly thought that other atheists ought to share. You were like a theist who believes in some sort of vague divine presence out there somewhere, but had never figured out what religion or theology to believe in.

You are criticizing only a very weak form of atheist, and not the best of what atheists have to offer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The belief of atheism is: no God. Isn't it?

From this starting point, all hells break loose. Of course your atheistic system is different from one of other's. It should be that way. And that IS one of the major problem for atheism. You have million versions of it. And you will shift from one version to another with aging.

 

[JGG]

Thanks for taking time to give the list.

Too many reasons is sort of equivalent to no reason. If you ask me why am I a Christian, I would only give you one or two reasons. Until you can do the same to atheism, you do not, in fact, have a strong reason.

Okay, how about this. I am an atheist because I do not currently see a reason to believe in God/a god/gods.

As I've said before, the question is a bit backwards. Asking why I don't believe in a theist system of belief is like asking why I'm not a fan of rugby. I don't know why I'm not a fan of rugby. Why should I like rugby? Why do you like rugby?

Not believing in a God is not really a position that needs to be defended, or even one that requires a reason. If you're curious as to why I don't believe take all of the reasons that you do believe, or that others believe and ask yourself whether they would apply to me. For instance, saying "I just picked a religion" doesn't apply to me. "I saw an angel in my bedroom" doesn't apply to me. "God speaks to me" doesn't apply to me. "I was an alcoholic until I found Jesus" doesn't apply to me. If you find a reason that applies to me, then ask away.

Asking why an atheist doesn't believe in God/a god/gods requires no defense any stronger than "because I don't."