Arguments for Atheism

I agree with that, and I find it exceptionally ironic how someone can accept conflicting views.

 

Athiestism, is when you don't believe there is anything. So which means there is no god. Personally I don't believe in god. Which is strange because my primary school was a catholic one. I never really believed there was something like a god. After a while I noticed that the bible couldnt be true also.

Sorry for my poor English.

 

Trinity again you're fixated on thinking two things that can't be compared are alike. Its not about state of mind when facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs. You give me some good laughs though.

 

Many people in this thread are deeply construing the nature of atheism. It's obvious you're not understanding what's been posted over and over again. I'll try a different way.

You were born an atheist. A child who lives in the woods, apart from civilization, will likely remain an atheist.

Atheism is not necessarily a choice; everyone is innately atheist. The only reason some are viewing it as a choice is because religion is so widespread that it's usually pressed into our brains at a young age.

The word "atheism" is just that, a word. It's a short way of saying someone doesn't believe in a god. Why it even has a word is testimony to how ubiquitous religion is. I'm creating a new word, it's called "aclausism" - the lack of belief for Santa Claus.

 

I hate when this is brought up. Picture related:

 

I thought there was one point of gtdarkpunisher's post that is worth addressing.

Faith is not the right word. When an atheist insists that life almost certainly originated with a natural process, they are making an inductive argument. Every time that a super-naturalistic explanation was been put forth to explain a phenomenon whose cause was unknown, that explanation was superseded by a naturalistic one. We don't know where rain comes from, so we say that the rain gods make it; we don't know why volcanoes explode, so we say that the volcano gods cause them to erupt; we don't know where thunder comes from, so we say that the thunder gods hurl their thunderbolts down to earth.

Science is a methodology that works. Through the proposition of hypotheses and the conduction of experiments, knowledge about the world is gained, and it is through this meticulous study that all of the aforementioned things, whose causes were previously unknown, have been explained in naturalistic terms. Because science, with its basis in naturalism, has such great explanatory power, it stands to reason that it, too, is capable of explaining the origin of life. Science is thus a methodology which works. To say that we should blindly accept any hypothesis with absolutely no supporting evidence is not just absurd to the highest degree, but it is counterproductive in that it shuns us from asking actual questions about it, and therefore prevents us from finding the actual cause.

 

Not going to lie, the picture made me laugh.

I also think it describes religion's influence over free thinking people pretty accurately, if in simple terms.

 

I'm agnostic, I don't go to mass ever and I'm still be ethic and moral person.

The fact that I believe in science more that something that hasn't been yet proved to me doesn't mean I have to lie about what my beliefs are.

It's plain simple, I don't believe in anything superior to humans, because I have had no experience with it/them. Simple, yet true.

 

Yeah, that's basically what I believe. I find no CONCLUSIVE evidence for either argument but atheism seems to be more logical than "the magic sky daddy."

 

Because almost all agnostic theists and deists I've met adhere to these beliefs, I'll assume:
1. You adhere to no specific religious beliefs because they don't satisfy your cravings for evidence.

fair enough.

2. You adhere to theism because you have little to no understanding of how the cosmos and it's contents were formed.

flawed. understanding, although limited, is known of the formation of the cosmos and none of these explanations need invoke god. evolution works via natural selection, stars and planets are created everyday because of the existence of laws such as gravity. invoking unnecessary beings such as god is irrational. Occam's razor conveys this perfectly.

3. OR you do have an understanding of how the universe and it's contents were formed, but you feel as though the laws that allow the formation aren't coincidentally existent, and you feel as though the universes "cause" cannot be explained without invoking god.

welcome, you are now on the same plane as the atheist which you so eloquently stated held an irrational viewpoint. atheists do not presently have a confirmed explanation, and theists can only have an explanation by invoking mere possibilities and the imagination. That possibility being the existence of God. but it brings up an entirely new set of problems such as: why does god exist? did god exist infinitely in the past, and if so, how is that possible if one can not transverse an infinite series? God has perfect attributes, don't attributes such as these point toward design? This list goes on for infinitum.

your point of view is no more irrational than the atheist that you described. unfortunately for you, most atheists aren't what you described. We accept not knowing, without resorting to the imagination.

 

imo, the recent years that massive amounts of people have been "converting" to atheism has made it seem as if it is another doctrine.

a combination of factors made it necessary to view atheism as an opposing movement. some factors being:
- atheism was incredibly damaging to theists
- theists had nothing to strike back against, as atheism is simply the absence of a belief.

 

Right, you don't convert to atheism, you reject belief in god and become an atheist because of that rejection. There is only one belief that is shared among all atheists, the non-existence of a god. Religious believers all share much more than that.

 

Atheism is looked upon on as the most logical way of thinking in terms of religion. Through understanding the various different religions they all have strong points so it's hard to understand what's the best one to believe if any. Although my main supporting religion would be church of England is any, I do support the atheism way of life and doubt religion in certian aspects.

 

Dualistic thinking is a sickness. Religion is a distortion. Materialism is cruel. Blind spirituality is unreal. Chanting is no more holy than listening to the murmur of a stream, counting prayer beads no more sacred than simply breathing, religious robes no more spiritual than work clothes. If you wish to attain oneness with the Tao, don't get caught up in spiritual superficialities. Instead, live a quiet and simple life, free of ideas and concepts. Find contentment in the practice of undiscriminating virtue, the only true power. Giving to others selflessly and anonymously, radiating light throughout the world and illuminating your own darknesses, your virtue becomes a sanctuary for yourself and all beings. This is what is meant by embodying the Tao.

~ Lao Tzu

 

Thanks for the Asian quote.. but none of us are following "The Way".. .

 

The Way is the Path that everyone will eventually follow. There are two roads to take in life - the conventional path that leads to misery due to the demands of the Ego and service to self, or the Divine Path that leads to spiritual freedom.

 

This happened to me to, I went to a Roman Catholic primary school and it didn't strengthen my faith or belief at all, in fact lessened it.
I prefer to think Philosophically as it fascinates me

 

Logic + science > Fantasy/Religion.

Religion principles are fine. I'm good with those "rules" written in the bible. How to act amongst others. But my parents taught me that.

But believing that there's a huge existence that put us together, and watches our every move.. No. Might as well believe in Santa.

 

Look on the bright side, you can't lose anything with religion.

It's it is real and you follow the rules, you win. It's only basically to be a moral person.

 

Not losing anything isn't an argument for or against Atheism; you can't lose anything being an Atheist either.

Theres no winning or losing in religion.
Your saying all non religious people are immoral?