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

[JGG]

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.

Whereas there is only one version of Christianity? I fail to see your point, or or I fail to see why this is a problem. There's only one version of atheism: One where there is no belief in God. What accompanies that, is irrelevant.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

No.

From this starting point, all hells break loose.

Atheism is not a starting point! I don't reason from negatives, but from positives. Metaphysical naturalism could be a starting point for reasoning, but not atheism.

And I see no "hells" breaking loose. This might have been your experience, but it certainly is not mine. My nontheistic journey has been productive and happy.

Of course your atheistic system is different from one of other's.

My atheism is identical to every other person's atheism. It is the lack of belief in divine beings. Just like every other atheist on the planet, I will answer the question: "Do you believe in the existence of divine beings?" with what amounts to "No, I don't".

My atheism is not a worldview. It is not a philosophy. It is simply a stance on one issue.

It is my philosophy of life that is distinctive.

It should be that way. And that IS one of the major problem for atheism. You have million versions of it.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I see millions of versions of theism. I even see millions of versions of Christianity.

And you will shift from one version to another with aging.

Please don't tell me what I will or will not do. You don't know this. You may speak for yourself, from your own experience, but don't discount mine so quickly.

I am 42 years old. I've been an atheist since at least my early-to-mid twenties. I have spent around two decades of my life as an atheist.

Know what? While I have refined my worldview since around the age of 25, I have not made any fundamental leaps from one philosophical stance to another. The core of my worldview has remarkable staying-power.

Just because atheists may vary in their philosophical views as a group, there isn't a reason in the world why any individual atheist should have a worldview that makes radical jumps as if blown about by a breeze.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am a scientist.

What degree do you have, and what is your field? Are you a research scientist, or some other sort?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Penumbra]

What degree do you have, and what is your field? Are you a research scientist, or some other sort?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't think a scientist necessarily has to have a degree. Anyone following the scientific method is a scientist in my opinion.

I think it depends what one is studying or trying to explain whether they should require an advanced degree or not. I mean, if someone's trying to explain something in advanced chemistry, electronics, physics, geology, psychology, or something like that, they really need a degree. If someone's doing an experiment in which they test whether their car gets better gas mileage with the windows down or with the air conditioning on, they really only need basic math and an understanding of how to control variables. Both are science, really. All science only starts with curiosity and reason, and it expands into areas that require knowledge (like in hard sciences and such).

(Not that I'm saying juvenissun is a scientist.)

-Lyn

 

[Isambard]

What degree do you have, and what is your field? Are you a research scientist, or some other sort?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Im guessing Creation "Scientist".

To answer the OP, only reason to be an atheist is because the mythos of religion is unconvincing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think a scientist necessarily has to have a degree. Anyone following the scientific method is a scientist in my opinion.

True, just as anyone can be a philosopher and yet not have a degree. I have never said otherwise.

However, when someone claims to be a scientist to add to their legitimacy in discussion, this implies that they have a degree and have worked as a scientist. If this isn't the case, they should be honest and upfront about this. Anyone can claim to be a scientist.

But let's hear him reply. I'm not assuming that he isn't a scientist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Suppose there was two people one who wanted to make an argument against the existence of Air and one who wanted to prove the existence of Air. Imagine two people debating over the existence of Air. Whatever argument that the guy makes against the air, he would have to use "air" .. Not only that but Air would have to exist in order for his arguments to be heard and understood (since his voice would travel through the medium). In order for the critic to make an argument against the air, it would have to be wrong.

Same thing with evolution. The evolutionist must use biblical creation principles in order to argue against biblical creation, In order for arguments to make sense in evolution they would have to be wrong. That proves that creation is true... Same thing also for Atheism, In order for Atheism to work, The Atheist must use the bible and bible principles in order to argue against that there is no GOD.

There are so much that people buy into with the "Evolution" stuff that Fallible man put out. I mean Evolutionists cannot give a good reasonable explanation as to why they put their faith in that kind of belief, and at the same time be Rational and internally self-consistent with the way their belief goes.

Evolution is just a cover-up because people do not want the bible to have Authority over their life, They don't want to think that there is a Heaven or a Hell. Evolution can be counted as an unlogical fallacy because the preconditions of Intelligibility is what Evolution cannot give an explanation for that goes along with what they believe is true, which shows how the Evolution worldview is wrong.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Suppose there was two people one who wanted to make an argument against the existence of Air and one who wanted to prove the existence of Air. Imagine two people debating over the existence of Air. Whatever argument that the guy makes against the air, he would have to use "air" .. Not only that but Air would have to exist in order for his arguments to be heard and understood (since his voice would travel through the medium). In order for the critic to make an argument against the air, it would have to be wrong.

If what you mean is that someone who assumes what they set out to disprove will have contradicted themselves, this is true.

Same thing with evolution. The evolutionist must use biblical creation principles in order to argue against biblical creation

False. The advocate of evolution need not assume the truth of "creation principles" at all. He may discuss them without assuming their truth, but that is something else entirely.

Same thing also for Atheism, In order for Atheism to work, The Atheist must use the bible and bible principles in order to argue against that there is no GOD.

False. An atheist would not assume the truth of such passages or principles. He would be far more likely to show how such principles contradict themselves, or how they contradict what we perceive. The method of atheists is likely to be empirical, not biblical.

This style of argument is a non-starter.

Evolution is just a cover-up because people do not want the bible to have Authority over their life

This is not so. I'm afraid that it is a matter of intellectual honesty in face of the evidence.

Besides, there are plenty of Christians who believe in the truth of evolution.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Isambard]

Suppose there was two people one who wanted to make an argument against the existence of Air and one who wanted to prove the existence of Air. Imagine two people debating over the existence of Air. Whatever argument that the guy makes against the air, he would have to use "air" .. Not only that but Air would have to exist in order for his arguments to be heard and understood (since his voice would travel through the medium). In order for the critic to make an argument against the air, it would have to be wrong.

I smell a red herring.

Same thing with evolution. The evolutionist must use biblical creation principles in order to argue against biblical creation, In order for arguments to make sense in evolution they would have to be wrong. That proves that creation is true... Same thing also for Atheism, In order for Atheism to work, The Atheist must use the bible and bible principles in order to argue against that there is no GOD.

Using your own faulty logic, the Bible would fail given that atheism predates the Bible. I think your argument just pwned itself.

There are so much that people buy into with the "Evolution" stuff that Fallible man put out. I mean Evolutionists cannot give a good reasonable explanation as to why they put their faith in that kind of belief, and at the same time be Rational and internally self-consistent with the way their belief goes.

Here is where I ask you to define evolution. Once you give me completely wrong definition, I'll refute it demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

Evolution is just a cover-up because people do not want the bible to have Authority over their life, They don't want to think that there is a Heaven or a Hell. Evolution can be counted as an unlogical fallacy because the preconditions of Intelligibility is what Evolution cannot give an explanation for that goes along with what they believe is true, which shows how the Evolution worldview is wrong.

 

[sidhe]

Eudaimonist already addressed the remainder of your fail, but I figured this needed the attention of a non-Christian theist...

Evolution is just a cover-up because people do not want the bible to have Authority over their life,

1) GRAMMAR! Please.

2) I accept evolution. It's the most reasonable explanation of the diversity of life. I deny that the Bible has any authority over me...because it's a BOOK. Inanimate objects don't get authority. Ever.

However, I do submit to the authority of La Belle Dame sans Merci quite willingly and totally, probably to an extent that you would consider "fanatically dangerous". Every drop of blood for Her.

They don't want to think that there is a Heaven or a Hell.

See (1).

Also, some people just look at your whole layout of eternal punishment and laugh.

Evolution can be counted as an unlogical fallacy because the preconditions of Intelligibility is what Evolution cannot give an explanation for that goes along with what they believe is true, which shows how the Evolution worldview is wrong.

Won't say it...won't say it...quote from the Simpsons...about passing a certain class and the feasibility thereof...

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

lol, You all just cannot see the true reality of JESUS and His Creation can you? It is very sad to see people who waste their life on useless so-called "Science" ...

////////////////////////////// False. The advocate of evolution need not assume the truth of "creation principles" at all. He may discuss them without assuming their truth, but that is something else entirely.

Same thing also for Atheism, In order for Atheism to work, The Atheist must use the bible and bible principles in order to argue against that there is no GOD.
​

False. An atheist would not assume the truth of such passages or principles. He would be far more likely to show how such principles contradict themselves, or how they contradict what we perceive. The method of atheists is likely to be empirical, not biblical.//////////////////////////

You do not see, Evolution is basically here to try to say that there is a different way other than Creation that the world came into being. Yes, Evolution could state itself without Creation principles but Evolution cannot explain the origins of the Universe. Wow. A singularity dot exploded and here is the universe, then some kind of chemicals bumped into each other, and Here we are through the RNA transformations.

I cannot believe this, people who put their faith in these "theories" made from Fallible man cannot give a reasonable logical explanation as to why they believe this has to be the way of universe and still be Rational and internally consistent with the Evolution worldview along with the preconditions of Intelligibility.

 

[SiderealExalt]

lol, You all just cannot see the true reality of JESUS and His Creation can you? It is very sad to see people who waste their life on useless so-called "Science" ...

////////////////////////////// False. The advocate of evolution need not assume the truth of "creation principles" at all. He may discuss them without assuming their truth, but that is something else entirely.

Same thing also for Atheism, In order for Atheism to work, The Atheist must use the bible and bible principles in order to argue against that there is no GOD.
​

False. An atheist would not assume the truth of such passages or principles. He would be far more likely to show how such principles contradict themselves, or how they contradict what we perceive. The method of atheists is likely to be empirical, not biblical.//////////////////////////

You do not see, Evolution is basically here to try to say that there is a different way other than Creation that the world came into being. Yes, Evolution could state itself without Creation principles but Evolution cannot explain the origins of the Universe. Wow. A singularity dot exploded and here is the universe, then some kind of chemicals bumped into each other, and Here we are through the RNA transformations.

I cannot believe this, people who put their faith in these "theories" made from Fallible man cannot give a reasonable logical explanation as to why they believe this has to be the way of universe and still be Rational and internally consistent with the Evolution worldview along with the preconditions of Intelligibility.

Ah, the secret decoder ring of truth argument.

Hint: it spells out Drink Your Ovaltine.

 

[Eudaimonist]

lol, You all just cannot see the true reality of JESUS and His Creation can you?

That's true, since such things don't exist.

It's very sad to see people who waste their life on useless so-called "Science" ...

Are you referring to Creation "Science"?

Evolution is basically here to try to say that there is a different way other than Creation that the world came into being.

Yes, which is an intellectually honest interpretation of the evidence, not the evasion you claim it is.

Yes, Evolution could state itself without Creation principles but Evolution cannot explain the origins of the Universe.

You are 100% correct about that. Evolution isn't a theory of the origins of the Universe. It is a biological theory pertaining to the change in the genetic material of a population over time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[2 King]

What evidence is there for creation?

Seriously? For satarters, the information in the simplest bacteria's genome.

Another would have to be the preciseness of the design of everything we know about, from the atom to a molecule of water to the genome to the interrelationshps among various plants and animals.

I remember someone saying Biotic statis, they'd be right. Mutations vary around a mean, or a norm -- they do not take off into left field creating whole new things. In hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria they are...still bacteria!
I have a question for you evolutionists. If thousands and thousands of generations of bacteria yield only bacteria, how many generations would it have taken for a fish to become an amphibian?

Also, the uniqueness of man himself. For example, to anticipate a challenge, I am able to think of a sense of moral accountability, a sense of planning for the future, the ability to communicate abstract ideas via abstract symbols.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

2 King, This is a good post you have made...

Evolution is the dumbest "theory" i have heard of, Evolution cannot be true.

For a belief to be true, you "Evolutionists" should be able to give a Reasonable Logical Explanation to why you make such claims while being Rational and Internally Consistent that does not go against the preconditions of intelligibility.... and Not once Have I heard a statement yet that has concluded this information. Evolution is an unlogical Fallacy that cannot be proven as "genuine knowledge" because there is not a sentence you all could say that does not go contrary against your worldview by the preconditions of Intelligibility. You all go against 3 of the preconditions of Intelligibility, Note there are many more, but there are at least three that you all go against, and That is ;

1. Absolute Morality
2. Laws of Logic
3. Uniformity of Nature

 

[juvenissun]

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."

I hear you and I heard you. Yes, you do not believe is not a reason. But why don't you believe IS a question. If your answer is I don't know, then it is even a more serious question.

You said that God does not exist. Fine. But there are a slew of consequential questions based on that belief. Everyone of them will not have an answer because there is no God. By believing that there is no God, you do not solve problems, you create a lot of problems.

 

[Penumbra]

1. Absolute Morality

Please prove that exists.

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

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.

If the only value of this life is to prepare for our future life with God, then my question becomes: What is the value of the future life with God?

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.

I don't think that an afterlife is a necessary consequence of there being a god. A god could exist, create everything, and let it die when it runs its course if he so chose to.

As to what properties a god should have, that's somewhat subjective. Lots of things have been considered gods over human history, including certain people.

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

What did it answer?

I mean, firstly, any atheist you're discussing this with has to assume for the sake of discussion that your god exists. So the premise is unfounded and only accepted by the person you're discussing with for a moment of time so that the discussion of details can take place. Otherwise, no discussion could get beyond the point of disagreement about whether this god exists or not. If the premise is false, then everything derived from it is false.

Secondly, I still have questions, such as the one I asked about what value an afterlife with god has. (I think it would be a pretty miraculous moment for me to run out of questions. That's never happened before.)

-Lyn

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Please prove that exists.

-Lyn

Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview. This isn't to say that evolutionists are not less moral than anyone else. Most of them adhere to a code of behavior. Like the biblical creationist, they do believe in the concepts of right and wrong. The problem is that evolutionists have no logical reason to believe in any sort of moral imperative within their own worldview.
In evolution worldview, right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain -- the result of time and chance. If the concepts of right and wrong are to be meaningful, evolution cannot be true. Right and wrong are Christian concepts that go back to Genesis. By attempting to be moral, therefore the evolutionist is irrational, for he must borrow biblical concepts that are contrary to his worldview.

The bible teaches that God is the creator of all things (Gen.1:1, John 1:3) All things belong to GOD (Ps.24:1), and thus GOD has the right to make the rules. So Absolute Moral code makes sense in the biblical creation worldview.

Some people may say, " Thats true. Morality is just relative. There's no such thing as Absolute morality, and therefore you should not try to enforce your personal moral code on other people!" Whenever people say that they are enforcing their own moral code on them at the same time. If there is no Absolute moral code, then nothing is actually fundamentally wrong: not lying, not stealing, not murder or rape.

This is just some of the beginning information I don't feel like going on. I will if you all want me to.

 

[ACougar]

1. Absolute Morality
2. Laws of Logic
3. Uniformity of Nature

1. Absolute Morality does not exist, all morality is relative (at least as a human is capable of understanding it.)

2. Laws of Logic Our logic is limmited by human understanding and flawed, one can not apply the laws of logic to religion because religion bridges the gap between what is known and understood and that which is not known and understood.

3. Uniformity of Nature, there may be uniformity of nature... however our understanding of nature is so small and limmited that there is considerable risk assuming we know enough to make absolute statements regarding what is and isn't natural and/or in conformance with natural law.