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

[Super_Rational]

I don't have answers. I only have bunch of questions. That is holding on everyone except atheist. They seems to know everything.

And now are saying atheists are arrogant? I've noticed this is the common reply christians make when an atheist disagrees with their poor explanations even a christian scientist would laugh at. That's great that you have questions, but that also doesn't mean there aren't sound scientific explanations for them already. But it's quite clear you don't trust science.

I don't know everything. No one ever will. But science doesn't pretend to. Religion does. Science is continually being funded. Why you might ask? Because it works. And since you know that all the "atheist scientists" are wrong about the earth, then sure you must know how it really works. Your nobel prize awaits you.

 

[humblemuslim]

No one said we necessarily have the ability to witness everything natural. But to make claims and statements about what we cannot sense at all is pure guesswork, pure speculation.

-Lyn

If I claim I took a shower this morning, of which only myself sensed, most everyone here, if not everyone, would not be inclined to say otherwise.

Now if I claim that I have somehow witnessed an event deemed "Supernatural", then the story is quite different. Such people that make these claims are deemed lunatics, liars, tricksters, or the likes thereof.

Disbelievers will go to any lengths to provide an explanation of how the event experienced could have happened naturally without having an absolute knowledge on the circumstances of the events.

Religious people act the same way when people start listing off problems with their religion. They provide any explanation they can to satisfy their intellect.

We are all guilty of it. It is just a marker of our insincerity and distaste for our incurable ignorance.

 

[Penumbra]

If I claim I took a shower this morning, of which only myself sensed, most everyone here, if not everyone, would not be inclined to say otherwise.

Now if I claim that I have somehow witnessed an event deemed "Supernatural", then the story is quite different. Such people that make these claims are deemed lunatics, liars, tricksters, or the likes thereof.

Disbelievers will go to any lengths to provide an explanation of how the event experienced could have happened naturally without having an absolute knowledge on the circumstances of the events.

Religious people act the same way when people start listing off problems with their religion. They provide any explanation they can to satisfy their intellect.

We are all guilty of it. It is just a marker of our insincerity and distaste for our incurable ignorance.

It has to do with probability. Most people in developed countries shower daily. It's considered bad hygiene not to. If you live in a developed country and have computer access, you almost certainly how shower access.

It doesn't have to be supernatural for people to be skeptical. If you tell me you shower daily, I'll believe you. If you tell me you can run a 3:30 mile, I honestly will not believe you unless you can provide proof, because that's faster than the world record.

If I know someone who smells absolutely terribly and looks disgusting, then I probably won't believe them if they tell me they shower daily.

If I accept every supernatural claim at face value, I might as well go burn a witch or something. I need evidence in proportion to the claim.

-Lyn

 

[Super_Rational]

Using this as a definition for what is meant by supernatural.

If our method of determining such is based on our ability to explain it using the laws of nature as defined by us through sensual observation, then would not ignorance in the broader sense limit our ability to discern what would constitute as being "Supernatural"?

Considering we realize our eyes are unable to see a majority of the electromagnetic spectrum, what makes us believe that even the combination and culmination of our senses has the ability to witness everything that is natural in our world?

You see, we have no reason to believe in the supernatural. But I'm not the one pretending that something supernatural is interacting with the natural universe. People claim to be able to talk to their god, hear their god, feel their god's presence, or that their god intervened somehow in their life, etc. But how would they know?

You are right, though. We sure can't see the entire EM spectrum with our bodies (but thanks for the nice picture). That's why we've developed other methods to get around this. I'm sure you're well aware of this...or I would hope so. We know a heck of a lot more about the natural world than we did years ago, and we will continue to know more with technology being the limiting factor. Can we witness everything natural? Who knows...that depends on if we have the capabilities in the future.

 

[Super_Rational]

If I claim I took a shower this morning, of which only myself sensed, most everyone here, if not everyone, would not be inclined to say otherwise.

Now if I claim that I have somehow witnessed an event deemed "Supernatural", then the story is quite different. Such people that make these claims are deemed lunatics, liars, tricksters, or the likes thereof.

Disbelievers will go to any lengths to provide an explanation of how the event experienced could have happened naturally without having an absolute knowledge on the circumstances of the events.

Religious people act the same way when people start listing off problems with their religion. They provide any explanation they can to satisfy their intellect.

We are all guilty of it. It is just a marker of our insincerity and distaste for our incurable ignorance.

Yes, considering they never happen around large groups of people, or they are obvious hoaxes, or claimed by gullible people. This doesn't strike you as suspicious? It's like some of the ghost hunters I've seen describe how they were sure they saw a ghost or some supernatural entity, but of course it didn't show up on their camera for all the world to see for some reason. Weird.

You see, most people go off past experience or well-documented evidence when they say a claim is a crock. Believers, on the other hand, may make up their own explanations for religious claims to fit their answers. But what if the event is explained naturally? Then what? Let's not forget that most religious people probably dismiss most supernatural claims.

 

[humblemuslim]

It has to do with probability. Most people in developed countries shower daily. It's considered bad hygiene not to. If you live in a developed country and have computer access, you almost certainly how shower access.

It doesn't have to be supernatural for people to be skeptical. If you tell me you shower daily, I'll believe you. If you tell me you can run a 3:30 mile, I honestly will not believe you unless you can provide proof, because that's faster than the world record.

If I know someone who smells absolutely terribly and looks disgusting, then I probably won't believe them if they tell me they shower daily.

If I accept every supernatural claim at face value, I might as well go burn a witch or something. I need evidence in proportion to the claim.

-Lyn

There is no reason to accept them all. Although it would be refreshing to see more openness to the possibility without an immediate reflexive answer suggesting the person making the claim is insane or full of it. That is all I ask for. Consideration. Often times I find that people are not even willing to give that much as are quick to use labels like "Crazy/Insane/Stupid/Unintelligent/Sheep/Absurd/Impossible/Etc."

Fortunately this does not apply to you directly. You seem to be open to all ideas, though you may not accept them.

 

[humblemuslim]

You see, we have no reason to believe in the supernatural. But I'm not the one pretending that something supernatural is interacting with the natural universe. People claim to be able to talk to their god, hear their god, feel their god's presence, or that their god intervened somehow in their life, etc. But how would they know?

You are right, though. We sure can't see the entire EM spectrum with our bodies (but thanks for the nice picture). That's why we've developed other methods to get around this. I'm sure you're well aware of this...or I would hope so. We know a heck of a lot more about the natural world than we did years ago, and we will continue to know more with technology being the limiting factor. Can we witness everything natural? Who knows...that depends on if we have the capabilities in the future.

Well there would be if you experienced it. For those who have not, sure.

How do you they are pretending?

They know just like you know when you grab something hot. They experience it through their senses.

However, their experiences are deemed hallucinations or the likes thereof. The hot hand, not burned, is deemed reality. How are we defining what is real and what is not? Simply based on what one has experienced for one self? Is reality relative? Or is it absolute and we are defining it by what most people experience due to our ignorance of the true natural world?

I lean towards relative since we all experience the world slightly differently. An absolute reality defined by a majority experience amounts to a bandwagon fallacy if applied across the board.

 

[Super_Rational]

Although it would be refreshing to see more openness to the possibility without an immediate reflexive answer suggesting the person making the claim is insane or full of it. That is all I ask for. Consideration. Often times I find that people are not even willing to give that much as are quick to use labels like "Crazy/Insane/Stupid/Unintelligent/Sheep/Absurd/Impossible/Etc."

Fortunately this does not apply to you directly. You seem to be open to all ideas, though you may not accept them.

I think most people would like to see something undeniably supernatural. It would be pretty cool, right? However I'm not aware of any documented cases that haven't been or can't be explained. And for clarity I speak of recent times. Why can't I immediately dismiss someone who claims to be the second coming of Jesus? For something so extraordinary like that, I will dismiss it outright until shown otherwise. And I bet you would, too. For most other claims, the reason so many people react the way they do is that they've seen many others make similar claims in the past which were obviously false. We all respond to experience.

 

[humblemuslim]

Yes, considering they never happen around large groups of people, or they are obvious hoaxes, or claimed by gullible people. This doesn't strike you as suspicious? It's like some of the ghost hunters I've seen describe how they were sure they saw a ghost or some supernatural entity, but of course it didn't show up on their camera for all the world to see for some reason. Weird.

You see, most people go off past experience or well-documented evidence when they say a claim is a crock. Believers, on the other hand, may make up their own explanations for religious claims to fit their answers. But what if the event is explained naturally? Then what? Let's not forget that most religious people probably dismiss most supernatural claims.

I operate under the 'Innocent until proven guilty' condition. Even if a claim sounds outrageous to me I will give it consideration and wait for further evidence to come forward. The belief on the matter will default at 'Not Sure' and either stay there indefinitely or will shift to 'Believe' or 'Disbelieve' based on the evidence provided.

Those are shows meant to entertain. They achieve that very purpose.

Many of the things deemed 'supernatural' are things I believe are quite natural. So when I see things explained naturally this does not conflict with my religious beliefs, but I do know what you are referring to. There are people out there that are threatened by natural explanations.

Reminds me of this video.

YouTube - ATHEIST!!!!!!!

 

[Super_Rational]

How do you they are pretending?

I didn't say there were necessarily pretending, but the mind can play tricks when under the influence of something. If a christian speaks in tongues, they think it's real. Perhaps it really is more than just crazy babble, but there is certainly no reason to think so.
Are you telling me if a christian has a hallucination in which they are "told" by Jesus that all other religions, especially Islams, are false, that you wouldn't dismiss it outright as being a revelation from Jesus? These events are too often so vague and subjective that there is no reason to give them more than a moment's thought. Your hot hand comparison, however, is not subjective. It's observable, repeatable, and well-explained. Temperature or gravity is not "relative" depending on the observer.

 

[Super_Rational]

I operate under the 'Innocent until proven guilty' condition. Even if a claim sounds outrageous to me I will give it consideration and wait for further evidence to come forward. The belief on the matter will default at 'Not Sure' and either stay there indefinitely or will shift to 'Believe' or 'Disbelieve' based on the evidence provided.

That's funny, b/c I just saw a cow jump over the moon. But seriously, I certainly have no problem with requiring evidence. We just set our defaults differently, I guess.

Many of the things deemed 'supernatural' are things I believe are quite natural. So when I see things explained naturally this does not conflict with my religious beliefs, but I do know what you are referring to. There are people out there that are threatened by natural explanations.

We agree!

 

[humblemuslim]

I didn't say there were necessarily pretending, but the mind can play tricks when under the influence of something. If a christian speaks in tongues, they think it's real. Perhaps it really is more than just crazy babble, but there is certainly no reason to think so.
Are you telling me if a christian has a hallucination in which they are "told" by Jesus that all other religions, especially Islams, are false, that you wouldn't dismiss it outright as being a revelation from Jesus? These events are too often so vague and subjective that there is no reason to give them more than a moment's thought. Your hot hand comparison, however, is not subjective. It's observable, repeatable, and well-explained. Temperature or gravity is not "relative" depending on the observer.

Well I would give the statement consideration and give the person a chance to provide evidence to convince me. If they rejected to do so or failed to do so then I would not believe it. But I would not just automatically disregard them. And even if they failed to convince me the result would end at my disbelief. All too often ridicule follows. Even if they have no evidence for me, they might have personal evidence that convinces them. As such they could never convince me, but that does not mean they might not be right.

 

[JGG]

All these features/questions have no answers.

They currently have no answers, okay.

BUT, if there were a positive answer to any of them, then it will have a serious consequence. In short, a positive answer of them will point toward the existence of some spiritual mechanism, which atheist usually take it as fictional.

How do you know they will point toward the existence of some spiritual mechanism? We don't currently have any answers to them, how do you know what the answers are going to be? UFO's, multiple universes, ancient technology, a sixth sense, even ghosts may have incredible answers that still won't point toward a "spiritual mechanism." Of course, we may find that they can be answered by less than incredible means.

So, there are multiple threads of argument. ANY one of them could lead to the bankruptcy of atheism.

Okay, so any of them could lead to the bankruptcy of atheism. But given our current understanding of any of these topics none of them do, and that's kind of the point. For example, if we get conclusive evidence that there is a God, that totally bankrupts atheism. However, as of now we do not have conclusive evidence that there is a God, so I don't believe in one. Furthermore, if it turns out there is a god, or gods, and not the Christian one, does that not bankrupt Christianity?

Again, perhaps I fail to see your point.

 

[Manoflooks]

Humblemuslim, that video was great.(cant quote vid...)


As a reply to the shower question someone brought up, I say this:If you tell me you had a shower, and you look and smell fine, and I have no knowledge that might lead me to another conclusion(say, I dont know all the pipes in your house froze)then there is no reason not to believe you. And quite frankly, if you dont stink, I don't particularily care if you showered or not, unless we happen to be wrestling naked.

A supernatural event, however, has by a rule to conflict general knowledge, because to be supernatural it must override the rules of nature. Walking on water, for instance, is impossible for a human because their weight makes them sink, and this is backed by both empirical evidence and a law of physics(or whatever science).



People are atheist because no explanation can convince them that their religion or belief is correct. And, unless we end up proving it to be true in some other way, that will probably never change, without a time machine. I am atheist because I am convinced there is no God(though i accept that there is a tiny possibility that He/She exists), that religion is entirely man-made, and that if one of the religions we already have is correct, God certainly does not deserve to be worshipped.

 

[SiderealExalt]

For OP.

Because it is in the intellectually honest position. I feel there are no good reasons to adopt religion, let alone to believe the unsupported supernatural claims of religion. Combine this with the significant harm that believing in the supernatural has caused.

 

[dewaddict84]

"Making the world a better place. Rationalism."
That is the essence of Communism faith. It broke.
We can not make tomorrow a better world. We may do the reverse.
Do you want to become a nanobot? (a part of you are operated by nano robots in your body)

You're going to have to speak a little more clearly, because that don't make no sense. If you're saying that progress is impossible, then I'd like to acquaint you with a history book. If you're referring to soviet russia, then you've lost me.
And things got weird when you threw in nanobots. Nano-technology is a very fascinating field. And when you relate it to medicine, the possibilities are wide. We'll be able to deliver drugs to the right locations without having to flood the whole system. Yeah, there are risks, but we'll overcome them. Because of science and progress.

 

[Super_Rational]

For OP.

Because it is in the intellectually honest position. I feel there are no good reasons to adopt religion, let alone to believe the unsupported supernatural claims of religion. Combine this with the significant harm that believing in the supernatural has caused.

I wholly agree with this. I would extend that by saying that although religion has done some good, I believe oftentimes the motivation behind the actions are not genuine. In other words, there is nothing good done in the name of religion that couldn't be done by an atheist. The following quote I think sums it up quite well:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

 

[ArteestX]

Why should the earth be round? (we see the fact, but we do not know why!)

Pick up one thing you know the best to see if I can give you a question which you must say: I don't know.

Oh, it won't take long to reach a point where scientists say I don't know. But the thing about science is that each answer leads to a dozen more questions, each question leading to more curiosity about how the universe works.

Science: Why is the Earth round? Because at the formation of the solar system, debris from the solar system coalesced into planets, and the force of gravity between masses creates spherical objects. But how did these planets coalesce in the solar system? Random chaos, which we're still studying and finding out more about. How does gravity work (is it a wave or particle or something else)? There are different theories, each one leads to new questions.

Religion: Why is the Earth round? God made it that way. How does gravity work? God makes it work. What is chaos? There is no chaos, it's all part of God's plan.

Now there are plenty of questions to be asked in religion, mostly pertaining to ascertaining God's will. Does God send people to hell? Is God pro-life and anti-abortion in all cases? Does God accept different paths to Him or is there One True Religion? Do those who never heard the Good Word go to hell, or limbo, or are allowed in heaven? And these questions, while interesting to discuss, are of little use in the realm of science. So if these are the kinds of questions you say atheists have lost curiosity about, then you are probably right. Atheists are definitely interested in governmental policies (ie, should abortion be legal, what role should religion have in government, etc.) but not as concerned about what God wants us to do.

 

[Wicked Willow]

It is a quite different matter between not knowing the origin of the universe and not knowing what would happen to YOU after your death. You may not care about the former, but I don't think you do not care about the latter. Quit thinking about it does not make you any easier.

Actually, I've pondered the topic of life and death quite extensively - and I don't find it threatening in the least. I might not be too thrilled about the prospect of dying, as it tends to be quite an unpleasant experience, but death in itself doesn't seem threatening or even intimidating.

But I can see why feeble minds would hide their fear behind escapist fantasies of continuing on forever and ever in an otherworldly Pleasantville. It's an extremely naive, short-sighted and egotistical fantasy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But, there is a consequence in believing any of those things. And the consequence WILL LEAD TO theism.

For example, if there is ghost, then there must be a lot of them. Then there must be a structure among them. Then there should be a king of ghost. And there should be a place for them to exist. And they may exist forever, or what would happen if a ghost "died"?

Nope. None of these are logically necessary conclusions. There are far more possibilities than this.

Not that I believe in disembodied spirits, but ghosts could be a side-effect of evolution, meaning that there does not need to be any "king of the ghosts", or a place for them to exist (aside from Earth). And why should anything special happen if a ghost were to die?


eudaimonia,

Mark