“Stop following me! We’re not related!”

[The Cadet]

Is that so.... What are the bad reason for being an atheist?

"Evolution makes god impossible" is a very bad reason to disbelieve.

 

[Jay Follett]

"Evolution makes god impossible" is a very bad reason to disbelieve.

I have never heard that before, why would anyone say that? I have often heard "Evolution makes the belief in gods possible" I have even sometimes heard "Evolution makes the belief in gods impossible" but never "Evolution makes god impossible", Evolution has nothing to do with Gods only the reasons for beliefs in Gods, without beliefs there are no Gods anyway so it's like saying... UFO's mean there cannot be any Gods, it's foolish in the extreme.

There are no bad reasons for not believing something for which there is no evidence, in fact it's the default position.

 

[The Cadet]

I have never heard that before

I have. Look, just because you have good reasons doesn't mean everyone does. Some people are atheists because they've never heard of god - not a good reason not to believe in something. Some people are atheists because they feel jaded by their religious communities, but this has nothing to do with a god. I'll gladly argue that most atheists I know have good reasons to reject theistic claims, but a god many don't.

 

[Jay Follett]

Some people are atheists because they've never heard of god - not a good reason not to believe in something.

Forgive me for stating the obvious but how can someone be an atheist if they've never heard of God? to be an atheists means not accepting the claim that there is a God, if there were no theists there would be no 'A'theists.
Christians are atheists when it comes to every other religion, thinking about it they are only one religion short of being complete atheists.

Some people are atheists because they've never heard of god - not a good reason not to believe in something.

I think you worded that wrongly, let's see, the fact that you have never heard of something is not a very good reason for not believing in it? why don't you believe in the 'great wooflesnaff'? you've never heard of it? that's not a good reason not to believe in something.

 

[AV1611VET]

Forgive me for stating the obvious but how can someone be an atheist if they've never heard of God?

Aren't you the one who claims we're all born atheists?

to be an atheists means not accepting the claim that there is a God,

No.

To be an atheist means claiming there is no God.

For whatever reason: scientific or emotional.

if there were no theists there would be no 'A'theists.

Again, aren't you the one here that claims we're all born atheists?

Christians are atheists when it comes to every other religion, thinking about it they are only one religion short of being complete atheists.

No argument there.

Unless one wants to get technical and define an atheist as: "One who believes there is no Godhead: Jehovah, Jesus, Holy Spirit."

But I won't go that far for argument's sake.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hardly.. Reason and scepticism is why they are atheists in the first place, I doubt they would abandon reason to believe something else that had no evidence backing it up, I think that's just wishful thinking on your part.

You can doubt all you want. There are people willing to abandon reason to continue to believe what they want to believe. I see it all the time. A lot of what science is all about is a Methodist for people to test what they believe to see if what they believe is true or not.

 

[joshua 1 9]

To be an atheist means claiming there is no God.

People have to reject science to be an atheist because science is agnostic.

 

[joshua 1 9]

...No. That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works.

That is how it works. We are guilty of what we judge others of. That is the way it all works. God does not give us the ability to judge others, we can only judge ourselves and project that out onto others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

1"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?… matt 7

 

[AV1611VET]

People have to reject science to be an atheist because science is agnostic.

Good point!

 

[Jay Follett]

To be an atheist means claiming there is no God.

No AV1611VET it's not, for an atheist to claim there was no god would be as bad as a theist claiming there was a god,
an atheist rejects the claim made by theists that there is a god, it is a rejection of a single claim.
How can atheists state that there are no gods? how would they know?

When a jury finds a person not guilty of committing a crime they are not finding them innocent, they are saying there is insufficient evidence to find them guilty, for an atheist there is insufficient evidence to find god guilty of existing not that a god does not exist, the same thing can be used about anything, Unicorns, Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or Yeti's.

Christians say that they can't prove there's a God but that atheists can't prove that there is no God, change the word God for something you know does not exist and see how silly that sounds.

 

[Jay Follett]

People have to reject science to be an atheist because science is agnostic.

No they don't, people need only reject the claim that there is a God to be an atheist, if you say there is a God you are a theist and you need evidence to back up your claim, if I reject your claim I am an atheist.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No they don't, people need only reject the claim that there is a God to be an atheist, if you say there is a God you are a theist and you need evidence to back up your claim, if I reject your claim I am an atheist.

Science does not reject the claim that there is a God.

 

[Shemjaza]

So does this mean you are a literalist - fundalmentalist - dispensationist?

I'm an atheist, so no.

Why would you possibly think that based on me posting evidence for humans having a common ancestor with chimps?

Are you really willing to go wherever the evidence leads you?

Sure, but that requires evidence to be presented.

There are stupid atheists I agree but what are the bad reason for being an atheist?

Example: "I was a Christian then benevolent space aliens told me that they created man and that God doesn't exist."

People have to reject science to be an atheist because science is agnostic.

Not true.

Since science hasn't demonstrated any evidence for any god then it isn't relevant to science if you don't accept the existence of one. In addition, the vast majority of atheists are also agnostics.

 

[Jay Follett]

Science does not reject the claim that there is a God.

Science does not reject the claim that there is a flying spaghetti monster either because science does not deal with things that do not exist, no one ever talks about Figgleworts for the very same reason.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have never heard that before, why would anyone say that? I have often heard "Evolution makes the belief in gods possible" I have even sometimes heard "Evolution makes the belief in gods impossible" but never "Evolution makes god impossible", Evolution has nothing to do with Gods only the reasons for beliefs in Gods, without beliefs there are no Gods anyway so it's like saying... UFO's mean there cannot be any Gods, it's foolish in the extreme.

There are no bad reasons for not believing something for which there is no evidence, in fact it's the default position.

Nah, I have heard some pretty bad reasons from people. I'll list out a few.

1. No deity would willfully allow suffering on the scale of that seen on Earth to happen. Why it's a bad reason: While this might be a weak argument for why an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent can't possibly exist, it doesn't serve as any sort of valid reasoning against deities that don't have all four of those qualities, as an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient being might not have the power to actively prevent suffering, and so on and so forth.

2. Every text claiming the existence of gods is so flawed that none of it could possibly be valid. Why it's bad: Even if this were true, which it isn't as flawed texts can still contain grains of truth, it would only eliminate the deities depicted in those texts, not any possible ones that have never been written about.

3. Any argument against Intelligent Design. Why it's bad: deities could exist and have no involvement in creating anything, or if they do, they could easily have flaws in regards to knowledge.

These I have all heard from atheists. Even if a position is valid, there can be invalid arguments for supporting it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

People have to reject science to be an atheist because science is agnostic.

Most atheists are agnostic; agnosticism is a knowledge statement while atheism is a faith statement. The majority of people that claim to be agnostic are atheists that either don't want the stigma of the atheist label, or make the same mistake you do in thinking the two concepts represent different faith statements. However, it is possible, and I have met a small number of them, to be an agnostic theist.

Taking a gnostic position on the existence of deities, at this point, kinda requires one to disregard science, given that there currently isn't any strong evidence that deities do or don't exist.

 

[Herman Hedning]

To be an atheist means claiming there is no God.

No, that would be an antitheist.

 

[Jay Follett]

Nah, I have heard some pretty bad reasons from people. I'll list out a few.
1. No deity would willfully allow suffering on the scale of that seen on Earth to happen. Why it's a bad reason: While this might be a weak argument for why an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent can't possibly exist, it doesn't serve as any sort of valid reasoning against deities that don't have all four of those qualities, as an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient being might not have the power to actively prevent suffering, and so on and so forth.
2. Every text claiming the existence of gods is so flawed that none of it could possibly be valid. Why it's bad: Even if this were true, which it isn't as flawed texts can still contain grains of truth, it would only eliminate the deities depicted in those texts, not any possible ones that have never been written about.
3. Any argument against Intelligent Design. Why it's bad: deities could exist and have no involvement in creating anything, or if they do, they could easily have flaws in regards to knowledge.
These I have all heard from atheists. Even if a position is valid, there can be invalid arguments for supporting it.

The operative word in all of that is "Could".

Any reason not to believe something that has no evidence to back it up is a good reason not to believe it.
Can you think of any reason (other than it feels good) why you should believe something that has no evidence to back it up?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Most atheists are agnostic; agnosticism is a knowledge statement while atheism is a faith statement. The majority of people that claim to be agnostic are atheists that either don't want the stigma of the atheist label, or make the same mistake you do in thinking the two concepts represent different faith statements. However, it is possible, and I have met a small number of them, to be an agnostic theist.

Taking a gnostic position on the existence of deities, at this point, kinda requires one to disregard science, given that there currently isn't any strong evidence that deities do or don't exist.

If there is no evidence then it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. When the good news is preached we read that: "The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor." This is understood to have physical and spiritual meaning. To be deaf, dumb, blind and lame in the physical is a shadow and a type of being spiritually deaf, dumb, blind and lame.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'm an atheist, so no.

I am not talking about the Bible I am talking about science. You have to be a literal - fundalmental - dispensationist to accept science. Unless you reject science. There are atheists that are so dedicated to being atheists that they reject science to maintain their atheism. Perhaps you do not understand. A dispensation is an age. For example the ice age would be a dispensation. Actually there were 6 ice ages. Science is very dispensational. Literal means you accept the artifacts and the natural evidence at its face value. You do not take a fossil and say maybe this is symbolic and maybe it means something different from what it looks to represent. I am a literal, fundamental dispensationalist for science and for religion. They all add up to God and science does not contradict religion. In fact science and religion compliment each other. If you maintain truth and integrity.