Why aren't you an Atheist?

by Bloody Hotdogs! 697 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  still thinking

  Ie, they have the capacity to believe, but would rather not for whatever reason(s). This bias would give rise to loyalty to the idea, and faith in it. Has this possibility been considered?

  So the other athiest don't have the 'capacity' to believe? How does one explain the fact that many used to believe then?

  This is a rather bizarre concept for why people don't believe.

  I don't believe...simply because it's not real. I used to believe, because I didn't know any different. I was told a god was real, like most of the world is told this. And I believed what I was told. I never really questioned it, or knew that could be questioned.

  Once I started to honestly question my own belief...it didn't stack up. And when I listen to others that believe...they don't stack up either. People make things up. It's fantasy.

  I'm not sure what you mean by 'nonmateriality' specifically. But if science was to uncover evidence of such I would consider it a possiblity. I mean, why not? Black holes don't seem very 'material', but I think that they probably exist. There is enough evidence to suggest it is true. There is nothing to suggest that any one of the millions of gods available to mankind are in any way real or true. And there are just so darn many to choose from, where do you begin?
• 

  cofty

  Well, my point is that there could be different kinds of atheists. You can't fit em all into one generalization.- Satantus

  Yes that's true.

  There are some atheists who are no less superstitious than theists. Some believe in fate, karma and reincarnation. Some trust homeopathy and visist chiropractors. Others read their horoscope and think there are such things as an honest fortune teller.

  Atheism is not a specific term. That is why its frustrating when Outlaw can't get beyond reciting the dictionary.

  KS makes a very good point about convicting a criminal when the evidence is beyond all resaonable doubt.

  When I say there is no god or that theists are deluded please assume an unwritten, "subject to the infinitely small possibility of the future discovery of evidence to the contrary"
• 

  Phizzy

  Thats the problem with Labels, all of a sudden, if you allow one to be attached to you, people assume you are the sterotypical type of person that label is often given to.

  I am the kind of person since leaving the WT, having been expected to swallow all sorts of hogwash all my life without proof, that demands proof that something is true before I will trust that it is.

  By proof, I mean that an impartial Jury of people that had the skills and knowledge necessary to evaluate the evidence would find the facts offered to be testable and true.

  If no such proof for something is forthcoming I will not say that the thing claimed is impossible, simply that it is not rational, as their is no evidence for it. Evidence may be forthcoming in the future. To trust that it is true now is to be in a state of delusion, as we were when in the WT/JW religion.

  I wish to be rational, and if something is not proven, it makes not one bit of difference to my life, or the way I live it, it cannot.

  So, God, Original Sin, Afterlife, a Risen Jesus, a Mohammad in Heaven, none of these are real, to a rational person, and do not enter our lives, nor will they unless we have satisfactory proof.

  Does all of that make me the wearer of a particular label ? Perhaps Coftyist would not be a bad one for me to wear with pride.
• 

  JWB

  0 + 1 = 1
  0 + 0 = 0
  
  Zero has no potential generative power. It requires the existence of non-zero for it to 'become' anything other than zero.
  
  That's why when you hear any supposed theory explaining how something came from nothing the 'nothing' is actually a very small 'something'.

  ---

  When speaking of 'God', I think of some eternal entity, something that 'wraps around itself'. There are those who believe that 'God' is simply some kind of eternal consciousness rather than a particular person who is set apart in one location. Of course one cannot argue against the existence of 'God' based on morality. We know people exist who are extremely evil but their lack of morality is not a condition of their existence.
• 

  JWB

  I might also add that the apparent non-participation of a person in the observable universe does not disprove that person's non-existence. All it proves is their apparent non-participation.
• 

  tornapart

  I guess I saw the OP as a personal question requiring a personal answer.

  What seems to happen with this type of question is that it brings all the atheists to the debating table wanting to tell the believers why they should stop believing, so then the believers come to the table and try to defend the fact that they still do. In a debate like this there are not really any winners unless someone is sitting on the fence and one of the debaters sways him to their way of thinking.

  An atheist can't prove God exists anymore than a believer can prove he does. There have been some very interesting points made, even though I haven't got into the debate myself I've read most of the posts. CA makes a good point about the anthropologists findings about children's natural belief in a 'supernatural' even if it is just 'fairies down the bottom of the garden'. For thousands of years people have believed in some kind of god, gods or afterlife. It's only in the light of scientific discoveries that have made people believe in the new religion of science with it's belief in evolution. Does it prove God doesn't exist? (whatever form 'God' may take). I've had a strong belief in God from a samll child, something inside me that a scientist would say 'defies logic and reasoning'. No scientific 'evidence' will sway me from that. If atheists don't like it and think I'm deluded that's tough, it's my life and I have the freedom to believe what I want. The important thing is that it gives me happiness. Scientific discoveries have made me change the way I view creation, timescale etc. but it hasn't made me believe in God's 'non-existence'. However, I do believe in everyone's right to freedom of choice, to believe what they want to believe, think what they want to think and not to put them down because they think differently to me. This by itself makes me a terrible debater. I think human relationships and 'getting on' with people regardless of their views is far more important to me than trying to make someone else see my point of view on a subject. I guess my motto is 'let's agree to disagree and we'll all get along fine'.

  Having said all that it's interesting to see others debating. OK.. so now I've joined in and you'll all see how rubbish I am at it.. LOL

  and who knows maybe God will settle the debate one day............
• 

  Phizzy

  Dear Tornapart, if your belief makes you happy stick with it ! Maybe.

  I don't think any poster on here is actually evangelical about non belief, but as you point out we are what we are, often because we choose to be that way.

  Because of the deep hurt I have experienced because of being misdirested by being a deluded believer, I have determined it will not happen again to me.

  So as to protect myself, I demand the proof I mentioned above. Otherwise I am vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation, why, I may even be persuaded to believe that I am a sinner in need of salvation !

  We can prove that God does not exist, it is possible to prove a negative, but that is not important right now, what is important is for all to realise that you may be happy being an irrational, deluded person, many of my relatives are happy to be JW's for instance, but you leave yourself vulnerable in so many ways.

  Why not try the life of unbelief ? you may find as I have , that you are much happier than when you believed !
• 

  tornapart

  Haha Phizzy! Nice one... Whatever makes us happy! That's the important thing. I can go along with that. (I'll ignore the irrational deluded person bit.... LOL) btw when I was a kid I did believe in fairies even though I was told not to... hahahah
• 

  NewChapter

  Tornapart--I haven't told anyone what they should believe---I discussed a lot of ideas.

  It's interesting how you phrased things---that atheists were telling believers they shouldn't believe----and believers came to defend why they still do.

  I didn't see it happening this way. There is one conversation I'm simply not reading, because it never makes sense to me anyway and has been repeated many times, perhaps that is where you found this dynamic---I'm not sure. But overall, I think we were all just discussing ideas.
• 

  Vidiot

  I don't need to be.

  I'm content with being vaguely theistic/deistic/agnostic.