Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

How did you become an atheist?

Jump to new
Zeitgeist:

About the 3min mark is when its errors become apparent. Compare to the reality of what we know about Horus (just for starters):
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/horus.htm
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/horus.html
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/horus.htm

For a more general undermining of the material used in Zeitgeist:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/religions_christianity.html

And the deconstructing of specific asserted relationships regarding Jesus being based on previous gods (including all scholastic sources which the reasonable person might like to check):
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm

Zeitgeist is not an intelligent refutation of Christianity. Christians are considered gullible for believing anything in the bible, but confirmation bias is apparent on both sides.

On the flip side, in threads like this it would be refreshing to see atheists reference guys like Walter Sinnott-Armstrong or William Rowe.

-------------------------------------------------

Prospector,

Have you read any highly intelligent and logical theists - Richard Swinburne, William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, William Lane Craig?

-------------------------------------------------

WayneL,

Wish you'd speak up more.
 
WayneL,

After years of research, the only strong argument I have seen against traditional theism is William Rowe's articulation of the improbability of God based on gratuitous natural evil. Basically (and going off memory here):

Suppose a fawn suffers horrendous burns in a forest fire and lies in agony for some time before dying. There is no justifiable reason why an all knowing, all powerful benevolent God would allow this to occur. We know events like this occur. Probably, God does not exist.

I doubt I've done justice to his actual formulation so I would not attempt to argue against this particular recollection of it. If one were to agree, then at most, it is still not an argument for atheism per se, but a defeater for a particular conception of God. This one still troubles me.
 
MS+Tradesim said:
WayneL,

After years of research, the only strong argument I have seen against traditional theism is William Rowe's articulation of the improbability of God based on gratuitous natural evil. Basically (and going off memory here):

Suppose a fawn suffers horrendous burns in a forest fire and lies in agony for some time before dying. There is no justifiable reason why an all knowing, all powerful benevolent God would allow this to occur. We know events like this occur. Probably, God does not exist.

I doubt I've done justice to his actual formulation so I would not attempt to argue against this particular recollection of it. If one were to agree, then at most, it is still not an argument for atheism per se, but a defeater for a particular conception of God. This one still troubles me.
Click to expand...
That successfully brings into question the concept of an anthropomorphic God, because as human beings, we would act to prevent or end the fawn's suffering.

But if there is a God... or "whatever", he/she/it may not be either benevolent or malevolent at all, or even conscious in the human sense. From this thinking there are infinite possibilities of what God could be, or could not be.

My contention is that the only truly logical and scientific position is agnosticism. I'm not, I have beliefs, which is why I accept my own illogicallity, but I try to have an open mind and eschew dogma... of any colour.
:2twocents
 
MS+Tradesim said:
Prospector,

Have you read any highly intelligent and logical theists - Richard Swinburne, William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, William Lane Craig?

------------------------------------------------.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that people cannot make up their minds without having to refer to 'people of greater mental powers'?

And no, I havent even heard of any of these people.

I do believe that a higher order power exists, lets call it 'mother nature', or 'life force' (organic or inorganic) I just think that organised religion has nothing to do with it. And everything to do with the people who 'organise it'.
 
wayneL said:
Just an observation. There is a gap in logic here that should be filled.

The logic here goes:

Organised religion = Bullsh!t

Therefore God does not exist.

That is actually a non-sequitur.

If atheism is purportedly the result of logic, the logic is in fact missing.
Click to expand...

Yep well said Wayne
 
wayneL said:
Just an observation. There is a gap in logic here that should be filled.

The logic here goes:

Organised religion = Bullsh!t

Therefore God does not exist.

That is actually a non-sequitur.

If atheism is purportedly the result of logic, the logic is in fact missing.

I would be interested in some truly logical arguments for atheism.

(N.B. wayneL has no monopoly on logic and has many illogical beliefs as well :cool:)
Click to expand...

Most people here are not arguing about the reality or otherwise of organised religion, they are discussing whether or not there is a God and therefore whether they are atheist. The method of worship is irrelevant. I dont base my thoughts on my idea that organised religion is rubbish, and therefore, in your argument, there is no God; but rather that I do not believe in the existence of God, however worshipped, therefore I am an atheist.
 
Prospector said:
I do believe that a higher order power exists, lets call it 'mother nature', or 'life force' (organic or inorganic) I just think that organised religion has nothing to do with it. And everything to do with the people who 'organise it'.
Click to expand...

Aye, there be wisdom.
 
Prospector said:
Are you saying that people cannot make up their minds without having to refer to 'people of greater mental powers'?
Click to expand...

No. I'm not saying that. Refer to your own statement:

It still surprises me when highly intelligent and normally logical people are devout worshippers.

The inference I draw from this is that they are only logical in the parts of their lives that don't pertain to religion. Hence, my question, have you ever read any indepth writing that reasonably shows there is no logical disconnect involved, even if you don't agree with the thinking as such?

---------------------

WayneL,

I've come to a different conclusion but I can see and understand how two people viewing the same evidence/problem/question can come to opposing conclusions and both be logical and rational. This is not to say two opposing views can both be logically true, but that unlike say, some fields of mathematics (where things can be seen as self-evident), in other areas of life there is a probabilistic element and we consciously or sub-consciously weight evidence/criteria differently and arrive at different views.
 
The logic here goes:

Organised religion = Bullsh!t

Therefore God does not exist.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, my logic says that organised religion is bulldust whether there is a god or not. I think it's fine for people to have their own spiritual beliefs (I used to have some at one time but have since rejected them), but when other individuals or groups tell you what you should/must believe that's the time to head in the opposite direction at a rapid rate of knots!
 
wayneL said:
Just an observation. There is a gap in logic here that should be filled.

The logic here goes:

Organised religion = Bullsh!t

Therefore God does not exist.

That is actually a non-sequitur.

If atheism is purportedly the result of logic, the logic is in fact missing.

I would be interested in some truly logical arguments for atheism.

(N.B. wayneL has no monopoly on logic and has many illogical beliefs as well :cool:)
Click to expand...

The logic in your statement works but, shouldn't the existence of anything be based on evidence. Theists believe in God without evidence, and agnostics believe God could exist but they don't have any evidence for or against, atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence.

Put simply, a lack of evidence is proof of nothing.

I find it funny that different cultures all around the world believe in many different gods based on absolutely no evidence.

In terms of Christianity, the followers say a lack of evidence is a test of faith, but it was very different before the birth of Christ, God spoke to many people - which is evidence, but not now.

Why not?

Is it too much to ask for just one tiny little piece of evidence????
 
Take away thinking and there is your answer.
Click to expand...

Many years ago I was involved with a group of people, many of whom I thought were smarter than I was. They persuaded me to go along to their (evangelical) church. I went on a few occasions and had LOTS of questions. One day one of the top 'smarter-than-Is' said "Peter, you think too much" and gave me a quote from the bible that went something like "Trust not in your own understanding, but have faith in the Lord."

I'd done a lot of reading and other research and was coming to the conclusion that what I was hearing from these people was wrong, but that was the end for me, it all became clear: stop thinking and accept whatever manure was being fed to me and I could be just like them. They plummeted in my opinion from being smarter than I was to being dumb, unthinking twits. If any believers reading this find that harsh, all I can say is tough! My self confidence took a boost and I thoroughly questioned everything from then on, a strategy that has saved me a LOT of money over the years when certain dodgy schemes/investments have come my way.
 
Krusty the Klown

but it was very different before the birth of Christ, God spoke to many people - which is evidence, but not now.
Click to expand...

Now that is a big leap in taking what has been passed down as gospel or fact. Who says he did?
 
We cannot even prove that we exist let alone God or the absence of such.

You know by the way that God, if he/she does actually exist, does not have a sense of humour. Sitting on the throne before time began bored shietless. Time commences and you go up to God and say, "Have you heard the one about...." "I've heard it." That's the downside of being omnipotent.
 
the way i see it theres not much difference between an atheist and a "godder"

atheist view: --- there is no proof of god so he/she/it must be a phony

interesting that an atheist refutes the possibility that a superior life form just "evolved"/happened/whatever out of nothingness ---

yet every morning we get up and check ourselves out in the mirror and what do we see?? --- a superior life form that just evolved/happened/whatever out of nothingness :eek::rolleyes:

most atheists are lazy --- just like most godders are lazy ---- its a lot easier to dismiss possibilities than it is to search for them

humans have no right to assume they are the top of the chain -- any atheists out there should consider studying micro-biology and/or the possibilities of "String Theory"??

ps i'm no godder in the traditional sense, but am about as far from an atheist as you can get ---

pps my best friend is an atheist lol :D ---- sorry, thats my second best friend!! -- my best friend is an angel ;)
 
Cartman said:
yet every morning we get up and check ourselves out in the mirror and what do we see?? --- a superior life form that just evolved/happened/whatever out of nothingness
Click to expand...

How can you be sure that we are not simply another being's dreams? This self stuff gets heavy. Me thinks that self needs coffee.
 
Theism, like any other -ism, is something that has been instilled in us by someone else. As we mature we find it more easy to reject those -isms that don't make sense, or are not in our interests.
 
most atheists are lazy --- just like most godders are lazy ---- its a lot easier to dismiss possibilities than it is to search for them
Click to expand...

If there is a possibility in the first place, but there is not until it is shown



humans have no right to assume they are the top of the chain -- any atheists out there should consider studying micro-biology and/or the possibilities of "String Theory"??
Click to expand...

Each individual human is entitled to assume as he/she likes, but assumptions are not facts.

And "string theory" we are not dealing in theory, absolute facts only, not fairy tales
 
Krusty the Klown said:
The logic in your statement works but, shouldn't the existence of anything be based on evidence. Theists believe in God without evidence, and agnostics believe God could exist but they don't have any evidence for or against, atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence.

Put simply, a lack of evidence is proof of nothing.

I find it funny that different cultures all around the world believe in many different gods based on absolutely no evidence.

In terms of Christianity, the followers say a lack of evidence is a test of faith, but it was very different before the birth of Christ, God spoke to many people - which is evidence, but not now.

Why not?

Is it too much to ask for just one tiny little piece of evidence????
Click to expand...
That is a fine piece of logic for agnosticism.

But it is not a logic that justifies atheism.
 
Top