Why are you an Atheist? (disclaimer included)

[Squawk]

It would be like asking a blind man why he doesn't see traffic.

Hack, wtf. I've tried to read this the other way, can't manage it. The theist (sighted person), asks the atheist (blind man) why he doesn't see traffic?

That looks like you're referring to atheists as blinded, physically unable to see what is before them. I think you intended the exact opposite with the analogy, but try as I might I can't read it the other way.

 

[australopithecus]

Because reality is more awesome than the stories of human beings. That, and the lack of evidence.

 

[Thyssane]

Because it makes the most sense (nice short simplified version)

 

[Welshidiot]

I can't accept the concepts "supernatural" or "paranormal",...in my view even if there were god/s and monsters, they'd still be a natural, normal part of the universe.

That's why.

 

[impiku]

I admit it all started from anger but reason inevitably followed and this is how I liberated myself from delusions I've so desperately held since I was a kid. I was too much of a weakling to let go of my imaginary friend when I was little because theism for me functioned as a reliever of pain.

 

[Carl]

it was a lil thing called the prob of evil.
i was 18 in the US Coast Guard, we'd taken our 36 footer out to train a new bosn mate and were coming back when our boat surfboarded and flipped. while we were under i briefly thot "God save me and i'll believe in you unreservedly" after the boar righted itself, it was a self righting boat, i saw the new bosn mate abouy=t 50 yards off in the water. he was waving at us. three days later he was found on the beach, dead.
while death is common place in the military, iit was my first military death. you see, i still believed so my fleeeting thot was a prayer and i was alive so god had saved me. what i couldn't figger out was why he took the bosn mate. he was not a bad guy, as far as i knew. trhe only reason i =cud think of was that he'd been taken instead of me. my grrand ma had told me over and over god is love and i accepted that. so god thot "someone on that boat has to die and carl just aasked me to save him"....so he took the bosnmate. i thot god loved us all,. then i realized god kills all of us. and i had a hgood idea tha killing somone was not normally accepted as an expression of love. soi, thot we all are expected to worship our murderer. i also realized that god sometimes made death very painful, for no reason. i soon came to the conclusion that god wasa the most evil malevolent thing ever. i was not going to worship such a thing. i made a quick trip to the local library, where i became an atheist

 

[Laurens]

I'm an atheist because there is no evidence for Gods existence, and one day a few years ago I realised 'hey I don't actually have any reason to believe something if there is no evidence for it'.

It was an epiphany of sorts, when I realised that I didn't need to try to be anyone else to please some unseen entity, I could actually truly be myself and be happy with being human.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It would be like asking a blind man why he doesn't see traffic.

Hack, wtf. I've tried to read this the other way, can't manage it. The theist (sighted person), asks the atheist (blind man) why he doesn't see traffic?

That looks like you're referring to atheists as blinded, physically unable to see what is before them. I think you intended the exact opposite with the analogy, but try as I might I can't read it the other way.

The analogy lies in the trait. I could have phrased it in many ways, and perhaps the example I chose was misleading. How about if I said 'it's like asking ginger why he has red hair', or some such. In other words, asking why somebody has a particular trait that they had no choice in.

There isn't a reason I'm an atheist. There is a mechanism, but even that would be poor to choose, because there are many routes to atheism.

In short, there is no 'why', and it can't even be demonstrated that 'why' is a valid question. I can talk about how, but not why. The attempted symmetry in the analogy is in asking anybody why they possess a trait they had no choice in possessing.

Again, probably not the best example I could have come up with, but it was the one that occurred to me at the time.

I suppose I could simply answer the question 'why are you an atheist' with, 'because I have no choice', but that doesn't actually answer the question in any meaningful way, and indeed I don't think the 'why' question has any meaningful answer. This is, of course, why I thought that PZ Myers was engaging in a brain-fart when he erected the 'dictionary atheists' nonsense.

 

[Squawk]

Ok fair point, though as examples go the blind man analogy is about as bad as you can do ;D

On reflection I've decided the simple way to state this is that the question makes no sense. The question is not "why are you an atheist". The question is "why are you not a theist". All a question of nuance me thinks.

 

[Mauricio Duque]

Several reasons, my mother even having a religion (catholic), she never tryed to pass that to me, maybe because she didnt had the time, maybe because she didnt think its was important.

I didnt even know what it was religion, until i have 9 years, when a teacher asked the class: whats your religion?

I also read much fantasy stuff, and play a lot of rpg, so i have a good parameter to separate fantasy and reality.

All my moral values comes from my family and friends, and since i begin to read the biblie (a few months ago), i can see how iam a better person than any of the caracters of the biblie, manly the god caracter, its the worst caracter i ever see in a ficcion work.

Cience its main reason iam atheist, not just because it works, and explain and discover stuff that the religious people could never imagine, but because it "evolves". In cience every discovery leads to new questions, every new question answered, gives a better understanding of the world, it ask us to be sceptics and make the hard questions.

While cience "evolves" and it allow us to get to the moon, religion its stuck and where it begin, there are no new discoverys on religion, they keeping teaching values that were teached 2000 years ago, even if they are considered imoral today.

If religion were true, and a god existed, it would allow us to know more and more about our universe, but instead, it keep in the way of investigation, and it ask us to not be sceptics or racional, it ask us to believe even if it dosent make sense, even if it has no evidence, even if it has evidence against it, and anything that ask us that, cannot be true.

 

[DepricatedZero]

An interesting question.

I'm not one by choice, as such. I've always actually been rather enamored with Christianity's aesthetic. I like it, a lot. The angels, the demons, rituals, hats, the whole mystic magic shebang. That always seemed really rather cool to me. It still does. Some of the stories are fantastic too. I've read my share of brainwashing Christian fiction(such as the Screwtape Letters), but it had - in the end - no more religious influence on me than, say, The King in Yellow.

So growing up there were periods where I wanted to believe. That's the best way I can think to put it though. I wanted to. I always doubted and never really bought into it. I looked at it with the same eye that I looked at Nyarlathotep, Godzilla, and Bilbo Baggins with. I knew that, no matter how cool the stories might be, that's all they are - stories. Indeed, with the same fervent appreciation I enjoy the aesthetics of the Cthulhu Mythos, of White Wolf's Gothic-Punk World of Darkness.

Looking back now, I think it might actually just be an appreciation for grand-scale horror. That only just occurred to me moments ago. Because that's what Christian mythology is - horror stories.

But there were times where I claimed to believe, where I tried to embrace it, where I tried to fool myself.

So after a particularly nasty breakup from an abusive relationship, I sunk myself in games, books, and booze. One of the books a friend gave me while in that stupor changed me a lot. It was Ayn Rand's Anthem. The ideas were so drastically, violently different from what I had known growing up. The juxtaposition of extremes that she presented helped to highlight the absurdity of the mode of thought I had bought into. So after I read Anthem, I picked up some of her other books, and that brought me out of the rut I was in. I was social again, I wasn't constantly drunk. Best of all, and perhaps for the first time ever, I liked who I was and what I was doing, and I didn't feel wrong for that. I landed a new job, sparking my current career, enrolled in school, and started working to make myself better. It made me realize in part that the only one who can, who would, pull me through the fire was me.

But even that didn't make me an atheist, or didn't make me realize it. It didn't occur to me until I met my last girlfriend a few years later, who commented once that I had a "strong atheist vibe" to my discourse. Somewhere between Anthem and her, I had stopped wanting to believe. I had realized what an utter crock religion is, and had demonized the despicable portions of it. In taking to heart Ayn Rand's suggestion of "think for yourself" I had filed away silly notions like god without even realizing it.

It wasn't some ground-shattering realization or moment of clarity. I was surprised when she said I was an atheist, until I thought about it and said she was right. I hadn't even considered it, religion was simply that irrelevant to me. She got me interested, though, in the politics of religion.

 

[Carl]

i was raised by parents and grandparents. my grandma was the only one who was religious at all. we went to a lot of different churches. she repeatedly told me " God is love". at 17 i joined the US coast guard, and when i was 18, the boat i was on flipped over, while it was flipped, i thot to myself , "god save me and ill believe in you unreservedly". another coast guardsman died, i was saved. at first i was happy, but then i thot," did god take him because i asked him to save me" this idea kind of tore me up, i didnt want to think i had killed anyone. at this time i still believed god is love and of course he answered prayers, and my thot while underwater had been a kind of prayer. so god must have saved me and killed him. this started me thinking about what i now know is the problem of evil, because i started to think that god killed everyone. and i was even more confused. the next time i had liberty or a day off, i went to the local library and took our a book on atheism. i dont remember its title, but after i read it i was an atheist and i felt good about myself.

 

[Andiferous]

Why? Really?

How? Dunno, because I've always been so. I just couldn't ever blot out the preposterousness of it all. Since I began to spend some time learing about how out observations really work, I didn't have any choice.

It would be like asking a blind man why he doesn't see traffic.

Then let me use a metaphor, Hack.

Why did you stop playing with toys? We all know that childhood roleplay and storytelling with inanimate objects is complete irrational bunk. As much as I can see you as one of those kids who never picked up a Hot Wheels car or Barbie doll, I think that statistically, it is inevitable that at some point something caused you to stop playing with toys, and that mechanism may or may not be rational.

So when did you stop dreaming about Santa Claus and religious idols, or have you never dreamed of them in your life? Have you ever pretended magic, have you never tried a prayer just to see what would happen?

When did you learn about 'how observations really work' and why did you put faith in your teacher?

Or if you had no specific teacher who told you to think this way, wouldn't the reasoning behind 'how observations really work' (as a learning process) have a root somewhere, with something(s) with a much deeper explanation?

Your reply was very tripe for this thread. I appreciate all of the honest responses.

 

[Andiferous]

Ok fair point, though as examples go the blind man analogy is about as bad as you can do ;D

On reflection I've decided the simple way to state this is that the question makes no sense. The question is not "why are you an atheist". The question is "why are you not a theist". All a question of nuance me thinks.

I get the paradigm between atheists and 'not theists,' but semantics demand you choose one or another. If you are 'not a theist,' your stance may be based upon naivete by lacking the tools or time to know otherwise. If you are an atheist, you are either thinking up the problem or have already measured the variables and have reached some kind of answer (or non-answer, as the case may be).

In my experiences, at some point there is a trigger that sometimes goes off in your brain when debating the two, and then you are completely aware which side you're on. For me it was an epiphany, although I spent many years thinking about it after the fact. When I did return to the question in future, my answer always came to the same fundamental questions that started the process.

 

[Andiferous]

An interesting question.

I'm not one by choice, as such. I've always actually been rather enamored with Christianity's aesthetic. I like it, a lot. The angels, the demons, rituals, hats, the whole mystic magic shebang. That always seemed really rather cool to me. It still does. Some of the stories are fantastic too. I've read my share of brainwashing Christian fiction(such as the Screwtape Letters), but it had - in the end - no more religious influence on me than, say, The King in Yellow.

So growing up there were periods where I wanted to believe. That's the best way I can think to put it though. I wanted to. I always doubted and never really bought into it. I looked at it with the same eye that I looked at Nyarlathotep, Godzilla, and Bilbo Baggins with. I knew that, no matter how cool the stories might be, that's all they are - stories. Indeed, with the same fervent appreciation I enjoy the aesthetics of the Cthulhu Mythos, of White Wolf's Gothic-Punk World of Darkness.

Looking back now, I think it might actually just be an appreciation for grand-scale horror. That only just occurred to me moments ago. Because that's what Christian mythology is - horror stories.

But there were times where I claimed to believe, where I tried to embrace it, where I tried to fool myself.

So after a particularly nasty breakup from an abusive relationship, I sunk myself in games, books, and booze. One of the books a friend gave me while in that stupor changed me a lot. It was Ayn Rand's Anthem. The ideas were so drastically, violently different from what I had known growing up. The juxtaposition of extremes that she presented helped to highlight the absurdity of the mode of thought I had bought into. So after I read Anthem, I picked up some of her other books, and that brought me out of the rut I was in. I was social again, I wasn't constantly drunk. Best of all, and perhaps for the first time ever, I liked who I was and what I was doing, and I didn't feel wrong for that. I landed a new job, sparking my current career, enrolled in school, and started working to make myself better. It made me realize in part that the only one who can, who would, pull me through the fire was me.

But even that didn't make me an atheist, or didn't make me realize it. It didn't occur to me until I met my last girlfriend a few years later, who commented once that I had a "strong atheist vibe" to my discourse. Somewhere between Anthem and her, I had stopped wanting to believe. I had realized what an utter crock religion is, and had demonized the despicable portions of it. In taking to heart Ayn Rand's suggestion of "think for yourself" I had filed away silly notions like god without even realizing it.

It wasn't some ground-shattering realization or moment of clarity. I was surprised when she said I was an atheist, until I thought about it and said she was right. I hadn't even considered it, religion was simply that irrelevant to me. She got me interested, though, in the politics of religion.

I find your response fascinating because (as part of Hack's earlier argument) I'm not an atheist by choice, either. I would love for my life's meaning and death's meaning to be swaddled by some superior philosophy beyond my understanding and some profound wisdom greater than all of our individual lives together. I've gone to many funerals (especially Christian funerals) and I always seem to have a lonely feeling, like I'm the only one who believes my loved one will see nothing more glorious than rot in his/her future. It really sucks, I'd love to have hope for an afterlife, and see greater meaning for my own life.

Thanks for your reply, it's definitely got me thinking.

 

[Andiferous]

because theism for me functioned as a reliever of pain.

That's not a bad thing?

My family went to a bible study group that didn't really consider themselves a church, called the 'Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research' founded by this guy in the 50's. This instilled in me a casual belief in God, since there was never really any pressure put on me to believe, just everyone around me spoke of Yahweh continually. But as I grew and absorbed information, my sense of a God became unstable. I typically went through various forms of soft spirituality, trying to reconcile my interest in the supernatural with my increasingly critical view of the world. I came to view god as a very anthropomorphic projection, who's story seemed too conveniently tailored to appeal to our fears and take advantage of them. Not to mention the desperation visible in the minds of believers and how they just need to be 'right' no matter what.

I came to understand that reality cannot be expected to owe us an ultimate explanation or purpose, that at some point it can only be what we choose to make of it. And if there is a god, it most likely isn't what the louder voices among us are describing. I also understand that it isn't my responsibility to find the god that hides himself, if there's something really important at stake then it's his responsibility to make me aware of this, otherwise I can only go on what I can reasonably know about reality, which currently tells me there's probably not a god, or afterlife, or sin, or a soul.

Yes, completely about your comment on "anthropomorphic projection." There is so much to be said on that whole paradigm.

I'm not finding an ultimate explanation, either. And yes, religions can send so many conflicting messages, how does one even know which to choose without god's direct intervention anyway? It's like gambling on the afterlife, and you're so right when saying we have a limited knowledge of reality and to that point, can't be blamed for not knowing of god's existence (as limited creatures) anyway.


Nasher - sounds like you have a firm grounding in religious education that led to the decision. Me, too.

Carl, that is a deeply moving story, thank you.

It was an epiphany of sorts, when I realised that I didn't need to try to be anyone else to please some unseen entity, I could actually truly be myself and be happy with being human.

Yeah, baby.

Cience its main reason iam atheist, not just because it works, and explain and discover stuff that the religious people could never imagine, but because it "evolves". In cience every discovery leads to new questions, every new question answered, gives a better understanding of the world, it ask us to be sceptics and make the hard questions.

...

If religion were true, and a god existed, it would allow us to know more and more about our universe, but instead, it keep in the way of investigation, and it ask us to not be sceptics or racional, it ask us to believe even if it dosent make sense, even if it has no evidence, even if it has evidence against it, and anything that ask us that, cannot be true.

Great points. And also, some religions make one feel guilty for even asking the questions, while science and discovery are all about asking the questions.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Then let me use a metaphor, Hack.

By all means. :mrgreen:

Why did you stop playing with toys?

I didn't. Never hear the old gag?

What have breasts and train sets got in common?

They're both designed for kids but dads can't help playing with them!

We all know that childhood roleplay and storytelling with inanimate objects is complete irrational bunk

On the contrary! Childhood role-play and storytelling with inanimate objects are the primary tools of education.

As much as I can see you as one of those kids who never picked up a Hot Wheels car or Barbie doll, I think that statistically, it is inevitable that at some point something caused you to stop playing with toys, and that mechanism may or may not be rational.

No, because I still play with them now, and can see the value. However; while I often refer to deities as favourite toys, that's more for the wind-up value. I don't think that your analogy really holds water for several reasons.

So when did you stop dreaming about Santa Claus and religious idols, or have you never dreamed of them in your life?

No, I never did.

Have you ever pretended magic, have you never tried a prayer just to see what would happen?

Prayer? No. I have pretended magic when I was young, and indeed there's a little bit of me that displays superstitious behaviour even now, although I recognise it for what it is, and don't really hold the underlying superstitious belief. or example, I still pull on my Man Utd shirt every match day, and there's something a little superstitious about this (although it's really just a show of affiliation, more than anything).

Thing is, though, I recognise pretence for what it is, and knowing that it's pretence means that it's qualitatively different from believing that a magic entity created all this just for me. It's a nice thought, but it doesn't really stack up.

When did you learn about 'how observations really work' and why did you put faith in your teacher?

Well, that's a difficult one to pin down, but it wasn't really the result of teaching, but an ability to spot a contradiction. Indeed, children can spot contradictions beautifully, and often point out the absurdities in religious belief with very difficult and probing questions, usually to be shut down by the believing adult who doesn't want to face such questions.

There's the famous quotation, attributed to Augustine of HIppo, when asked 'what was god doing before he created the universe?', he replied 'preparing hell for people who ask such questions!'

Or if you had no specific teacher who told you to think this way, wouldn't the reasoning behind 'how observations really work' (as a learning process) have a root somewhere, with something(s) with a much deeper explanation?

Well, again, it boils down to an early ability to spot a contradiction, and being aware at an early age that contradictory propositions couldn't both be true.

Your reply was very tripe for this thread. I appreciate all of the honest responses.

Squawk has already taken me to task for the quality of my reply, which wasn't up to my usual standard of service, and I 'gratefully accepted his rebuke'. I did clarify it, and I think that the clarification should firm up the point I was trying to make.

 

[Andiferous]

Then let me use a metaphor, Hack.

By all means. :mrgreen:

Why did you stop playing with toys?

I didn't. Never hear the old gag?

You're alright then, at least before the gag.

They're both designed for kids but dads can't help playing with them!

] We all know that childhood roleplay and storytelling with inanimate objects is complete irrational bunk

On the contrary! Childhood role-play and storytelling with inanimate objects are the primary tools of education.

I completely agree.

As much as I can see you as one of those kids who never picked up a Hot Wheels car or Barbie doll, I think that statistically, it is inevitable that at some point something caused you to stop playing with toys, and that mechanism may or may not be rational.

No, because I still play with them now, and can see the value. However; while I often refer to deities as favourite toys, that's more for the wind-up value. I don't think that your analogy really holds water for several reasons.

That's awesome. I'm imagining it now.

So when did you stop dreaming about Santa Claus and religious idols, or have you never dreamed of them in your life?

No, I never did.

I think I find this really hard to take in given my frame of reference. Everything for me was about gods and superheroes. Gods and heroes fit snugly into my idea of human archetypes.

Have you ever pretended magic, have you never tried a prayer just to see what would happen?

Prayer? No. I have pretended magic when I was young, and indeed there's a little bit of me that displays superstitious behaviour even now, although I recognise it for what it is, and don't really hold the underlying superstitious belief. or example, I still pull on my Man Utd shirt every match day, and there's something a little superstitious about this (although it's really just a show of affiliation, more than anything).

Thing is, though, I recognise pretence for what it is, and knowing that it's pretence means that it's qualitatively different from believing that a magic entity created all this just for me. It's a nice thought, but it doesn't really stack up.

Maybe, but I don't think most people take this into consideration fairly early on.

When did you learn about 'how observations really work' and why did you put faith in your teacher?

Well, that's a difficult one to pin down, but it wasn't really the result of teaching, but an ability to spot a contradiction. Indeed, children can spot contradictions beautifully, and often point out the absurdities in religious belief with very difficult and probing questions, usually to be shut down by the believing adult who doesn't want to face such questions.

There's the famous quotation, attributed to Augustine of HIppo, when asked 'what was god doing before he created the universe?', he replied 'preparing hell for people who ask such questions!'

St. Augustine?

Yeah I agree with you in that children are apt at recognising contradiction. I suspect mostly because they are not judgmental and can see with some clarity.

Or if you had no specific teacher who told you to think this way, wouldn't the reasoning behind 'how observations really work' (as a learning process) have a root somewhere, with something(s) with a much deeper explanation?

Well, again, it boils down to an early ability to spot a contradiction, and being aware at an early age that contradictory propositions couldn't both be true.

There was never an experience or a psychological/emotional stimulus that started the trend?

Your reply was very tripe for this thread. I appreciate all of the honest responses.

Squawk has already taken me to task for the quality of my reply, which wasn't up to my usual standard of service, and I 'gratefully accepted his rebuke'. I did clarify it, and I think that the clarification should firm up the point I was trying to make.

Squawk kinda, but I responded to him too. Thanks for the clarification and I'm sorry for judging your post offhand. Granted, many others said essentially the same thing. I also relate to what you're saying, but I'm still wondering 'why.'

 

[Deleted member 619]

Never apologise for picking one of my posts to bits. If I cock up or don't explain properly, it's absolutely correct that you highlight this. I don't learn anything when I get things right.

 

[Andiferous]

Never apologise for picking one of my posts to bits. If I cock up or don't explain properly, it's absolutely correct that you highlight this. I don't learn anything when I get things right.

That sounds like me.