The Need To Question Atheism

by The wanderer 142 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  IsaacJS2

  Wanderer, thanks for posting the question with good intentions. A lot of people who have issues with us don't even bother asking, or if they do, it's to vent their exasperation with what they think they know about us. After participating in the "Blasphemy Challenge" on YouTube, I can't help but be reminded of that fact. So I really appreciate you asking.

  As to what it is, atheism is just the lack of belief in God. Note that atheism as a single word doesn't automatically imply one is non-religious, only non-god believing. Some religions are atheistic. Most, if not all of we atheists here, are agnostic atheists. http://atheism.about.com/ is a good place to learn more about atheism in detail.

  If there was proof of God, I probably wouldn't have become an atheist. I'm not an atheist due to my WT experiences--or at least, not directly because of them. The evidence just seems to lean against the existence of God. I suspect that if I'm wrong and there is a god of any sort, it is a deistic one. I actually do doubt the existence of the Christian God, as mentioned in the Bible. I also agree with those who said he isn't presented as a very nice guy in the Bible (WT version or not). If that particular god does exist, I wouldn't worship Him because He deserves it. The best I could offer is deference out of fear to avoid getting zapped with leprosy or turned into a pillar of salt, or something. I doubt the existence of the supernatural as well. I don't see how life after death is possible, but just like everything else I say or think, I could always be wrong.

  As far as meaning of life stuff goes, I don't know that the universe owes us a meaning to live. Why should we expect to be given one? We can't be lazy about this--we have to find our meaning ourselves. We were born to live and have to create our purpose. We have to use our time well instead of writing off this life in favor of some other. That's how I feel about it. Far as I'm concerned, when we look in the mirror, that's all that we are. Our minds, however, can do wonderful and even awe inspiring things. I see nothing depressing about that. It just seems like a bit of an ego trip to reject atheism on this basis to me. If it's just the way it is, and has always been, then no biggy. You know? Atheism, as mentioned by others, doesn't pretend to answer such questions. There is no philosophy, dogma, or worldview implied by atheism.

  BTW, thanks for your open mindedness as well, Olvidado. :-)

  IsaacJ
• 

  daniel-p

  The meaning of life is to accept that there is no meaning to life and to be content with that. Everyone else believes in God.
• 

  Blueblades

  Wanderer, may I suggest Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr.'s book: The Question Of God. C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud debate God, Love, Sex, and The Meaning Of Life.

  Many of history's greatest thinkers have wrestled with the ultimate question of belief and nonbelief in God. Though it might seen unlikely that any new arguments could possibly be raised on either side, the twentieth century managed to produce two men who each made brilliant, new and lasting arguments, one in favor of belief and one opposed. Few spokesmen have ever championed their respective positions better than Freud and Lewis. Sadly, as far as we know, they never met or debated each other.

  Blueblades
• 

  choosing life

  Golf2,

  I have always admired the respect that the Native Americans show for the creation. Thanks for another view.

  I don't think that anyone can prove or disprove the existence of God. That is why there are so many varied opinions. It could be argued indefinately. The only thing that tends to influence me is nature.
• 

  Seeker4

  Choosing Life,

  Sorry, but I have to disagree. Why couldn't god prove his existence in a second? I don't doubt that you exist, or that any number of people I know exist. It should be pretty simple for god to prove his/her existence.

  The ONLY reason it is impossible to prove god's existence is because there is no god. If there were a living god, proving that would be a snap!

  S4
• 

  mavie

  "What is the meaning of life?"

  While atheism doesn't proport to answer this question, one can infer a meaning that seems cold and empty. That is, to procreate and make sure our genes carry on to the next generation. However, this question can be answered in another way. Atheism, or religion in general are not necessary to answer this question. Instead, we make our own meaning.

  http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-Meaning-Viktor-Frankl/dp/1844132390/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-2570890-7690564?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176057621&sr=8-3

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_search_for_meaning

  I read this book at the suggestion of a close friend. The author was interned at a concentration camp in WWII Germany. He found meaning in the suffering he experienced and observed around him during this time.

  Here is a quote from the book:

  "It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life—daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual."
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  let's say that this literal god we all squable over came from the sky and said: "Howdy doodie human beans! I'm God, the one who made everything including YOU!!"

  there would still be atheists, and still be theists. there would still be people whose range of awareness is such that they would be atheistic to other gods (say thor for example), but theistic towards this new god who appeared in the sky.

  i would no longer be an atheist towards the god who appeared, of course, but it does not mean that i would worship she/he/it. let's be clear about this distinction.

  and all the people who did worship this new god would all be going: "see! God does exist! we were right! yay team!" - without comprending that they are like everyone else still: theist AND atheist. LOL.

  tetra
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  I have heard many athiests claim that if only God would reveal God's self to humanity with obvious proof (also claiming this would be a very simple thing) they would no longer be athiests. But I have long disagreed, suspecting that many would still not believe in God but would sooner assume that someone was just pulling an elaborate trick, a grand illusion, or else that they themselves had gone insane and therefore could not trust their own perceptions. The Qur'an says the same thing.

  In imagining this occuring, I think there would be some God-believers who would feel the same way about this manifestation as atheists and would not be certain if it could be trusted as real. There would be others, believer and non-believer, who would accept it.

  Interesting to ponder. On what are our assumptions about reality based? What challenges those assumtions? How do we respond to those challenges? And why?

  ~Merry
• 

  Vinny

  Seeker4 said:..."Sorry, but I have to disagree. Why couldn't god prove his existence in a second? I don't doubt that you exist, or that any number of people I know exist. It should be pretty simple for god to prove his/her existence. The ONLY reason it is impossible to prove god's existence is because there is no god. If there were a living god, proving that would be a snap!"
  
  
  **** I disagree with you. Just because a Creator chooses not to plainly show himself to His creation, in no way shape or form PROVES that he does not exist. I am a theist. Some of the most brilliant minds, both past and present were theists as well. The evidence, for me, is overwhelming when I examine the many highly structured, extremely purposeful systems which surround us and make up life as we know it today. There is not a CHANCE, in my mind, that all of these things just happened to begin existing without any intellectual guiding force whatsoever.
  
  Every single effect has a cause. The keyboard you are typing on was made by somebody. Every single item in our homes today were created by some living, breathing human being or machine created by human beings. That is a fact. This is a universal principle that every effect must have a beginning, a cause, no exceptions. To then just assume that the highly structured universe itself, the earth with its many complex systems surrounding us today, and all life thereon just happened to be formed into what we have in front of us, right now, by some intelligence-less, haphazard series of accidents is not very convincing or reasonable or logical to me. Nor is this believed or considered as reasonable to most of the other billions of humans living on the earth today, yesterday or tomorrow.
• 

  Seeker4

  Yo, Vinny! Your points area a veritable smorgasborg of logical fallicies. Oh! Where to begin?? I'll put your comments in bold, and my responses in regular type.

  Just because a Creator chooses not to plainly show himself to His creation, in no way shape or form PROVES that he does not exist.

  That is the opposite point from what I was making. You cannot prove a negative, and I know that. My point was the opposite - God could easily prove his existence, just as any of us could. If a mere human can prove he exists, I'm sure an almighty god could. It's the theist who is making the extraordinary claim - a god and creator exists - so it is not the responsibility of the atheist to prove the impossible - the non-existence of god - it is the theist's responsibility to put his evidence where his mouth is - provide the proof that god exists. And how stupid is it for a creator to demand that your eternal life depends upon believing in him and worshipping him - and then he "chooses not to plainly show himself to His creation." That god is one sick fucker. And what a sad argument that is, that god exists but chooses not to show himself. What a copout!

  I am a theist. Some of the most brilliant minds, both past and present were theists as well.

  That's an Argument From Authority, and proves nothing. I bet there were a lot more brilliant folks who were theists in past centuries before the logic and science of evolution gave an alternative explanation beyond a god/creator. I would be willing to hazard that the most brilliant minds of our time are NOT theists, though I don't have any evidence of that. Maybe someone else has some figures here.

  The evidence, for me, is overwhelming when I examine the many highly structured, extremely purposeful systems which surround us and make up life as we know it today. There is not a CHANCE, in my mind, that all of these things just happened to begin existing without any intellectual guiding force whatsoever.

  Ah, here we have an Argument From Personal Incredulity, that is, "I can't explain or understand how evolution could have produced this abundance of life, therefore it cannot be true." Just because, in YOUR mind, you can't understand or imagine this happening without an "intellectual guiding force," means nothing. There is absolutely no concrete evidence of any sort for that intellectual guiding force.
  
  Every single effect has a cause. The keyboard you are typing on was made by somebody. Every single item in our homes today were created by some living, breathing human being or machine created by human beings. That is a fact. This is a universal principle that every effect must have a beginning, a cause, no exceptions.

  Right there you express the main argument AGAINST a creator/god. If every effect MUST have a beginning, NO EXCEPTIONS, as you claim, then that god/creator has to have a beginning. If you claim it doesn't, then you create an exception to your own idea and therefore negate it. This is the HUGE flaw in the thinking of creationists. Thank you for highlighting it so well.

  To then just assume that the highly structured universe itself, the earth with its many complex systems surrounding us today, and all life thereon just happened to be formed into what we have in front of us, right now, by some intelligence-less, haphazard series of accidents is not very convincing or reasonable or logical to me. Nor is this believed or considered as reasonable to most of the other billions of humans living on the earth today, yesterday or tomorrow.

  The first part of your last paragraph goes back to the logical fallacy of an Argument From Personal Incredulity. You're saying that the concept of evolution doesn't seem logical to you, therefore it's false - which is a bad argument. Because you personally can't understand the fact of evolution and the mountain of evidence supporting it, doesn't negate that evidence one iota. The last part of that paragraph, that billions of people don't believe in evolution (Which may or may not be true - perhaps billions do. Not everyone lives in the religion dominated, science ignorant USA.), is a logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Common Belief - that something must be true if a lot of people believe it. It's a subset of the Appeal From Authority logical fallacy.

  I'll bet you this, that the overwhelming majority of people who are well educated in the sciences totally believe in evolution and natural selection, and they do that based on their understanding of the facts and the evidence to support those facts. The overwhelming majority of people on the Earth who have an educated, factual basis for understanding the natural processes that you find illogical would completely disagree with your conclusions.

  S4