Q for atheists?

Question

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, so don't worry, lol. I only seek knowledge.

Of all the Q&A's about atheism or from atheists I have read, although I may have missed quite a few that relate to my question, it seems that atheists always reject God through the Christian concept of Him. What I am wondering is if you reject the entire world's differing views of God, or just specific ones?

I want to point out that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not the only religions that believe in a Creator or supreme being as these ideas have been found in Hinduism, Buddhism, native religions, etc, as well.

Thanks for your answers, and again, I have no alterior motives, lol, just a knowledge seeker.

Sorry, I'll correct myself on Buddhism. I didn't mean a god of Buddhism, I know there is none. What I am thinking of is a concept similar to Brahman in Hinduism. I may be mistaken, but isn't there something similar?

Answer 1

Thanks for the question! For myself it is a matter of my commitment to logic, criticial thinking and scientific method. I do not and cannot accept something that contradicts everything I see in the real world because some "revelator" assures me a divine being appeared to them in a cave (Mohammed) or in the woods (Joseph Smith) or on a mountaintop (Moses), or in a vision (Saul of Tarsus) and gave them the information to give us instead of the divine being simply appearing in the sky and explaining it first hand.

No god of any religion can ever be called to testify on behalf of the so-called prophets, but that is the basis of many religions. There is no good reason to give creedence to these "prophets." Even their own followers argue to the point of wars and murders over what their vague prophecies and teachings truly mean. Surely a god could make themselves clear.

Whenever we test supernatural claims they always either prove false, like all the phoney "faith healers" or they prove untestable. And whatever cannot be tested is simply speculation if not outright fraud, and baseless speculation is not a foundation for living.

I've studied comparative religions, archeology, sociology, anthropology, social psychology, and even went to seminary for a graduate degree in theology. I find religions fascinating. As an invention of humankind, they reflect the best and worst of humanity, as do the gods that were invented for these mythologies. We no longer need these fantasies. In fact, they are a reflection of our intellectual and emotional immaturity as a species, and we will never reach our true potential arguing, killing, spending resources on non-existent deities instead of taking care of ourselves and each other.

Religion is just a source of misunderstanding, division and hatred that keeps us from understanding each other's humanity.
No god will ever lift a finger to help us. We must help each other. We must put away these childish things of our infancy and create our own destiny, hopefully a better one that spending eternity as sycophants to a more powerful being. Hasn't humanity had enough of that?

Answer 2

I don't reject one religion's conception of God in particular. It's the idea that there is a supreme being that I have a problem with.

Most religions are very old, and when they started they were the best explanations for why we're here that were available at the time. Since then, we've come up with what I and most other atheists think is a better one, which is science. Science explains things in a way that I find far more convincing than religion; it also leaves room for things that it can't explain yet, which religions tend not to do; I find that they tend to think that they have all the answers. Scientists are very honest about what they don't know. And the more I read about science, the more amazing the world seems. Religion just always ends up directing me back to the holy book, or whatever; it reduces everything to believing. I don't want to believe in something I don't find convincing, and I don't think the idea that there is a supreme being is convincing.

I also don't like the idea that some other person should tell me what to do because he knows what the supreme being wants me to do, but that's a quarrel with organised religion, not with faith.

I think that religion has given us amazing music and art and poetry over the centuries, and I love those things dearly. But it's religious faith as such that I have a problem with, not any one religion in particular. Hope that was helpful!

Answer 3

I reject the Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) idea of God specifically, because 1) logically, several of the traits given in the texts of these rligions for God are not compatible, and 2) scientific evidence has debunked many of their claims.

Buddhism is atheistic. Much of Hinduism is henotheistic (one divine seen through many lenses). My tendency is toward an Advaita Vedantic perspective; there is a source (better word than creator) to the universe which can in a very strict sense be seen as intelligent. Obviously there is information in the ground state of the universe. But I see no reason to suppose this source has a personality, which is required for theism. I also believe that all of the relevant qualities of this source can be explored empirically, both through physical science and exploration of the mental (meditation, etc.). If it isn't availible to human inquiry, then it isn't relevant to human existence (although some techniques for inquiry may provide personal development that changes what is empirical). Faith is only needed to do the experiment(s), and should disappear with the evidence one way or the other.

Answer 4

This is an excellent question, and I thank you for asking it so respectfully.

I don't believe in any supernatural things, so it's not just the Christian god, or even gods in general, but psychic phenomena, souls, contact with the dead, spoon-bending and all of that other stuff that I don't believe in.

I would describe my belief system as "Bright" (you can Google it if you're interested). That means that I have a naturalistic worldview: what happens happens for natural reasons, not requiring any outside intentionality. What exists exists naturally.

That is NOT the same as saying "what happens has a natural explanation". To "have an explanation" implies that it has been explained (to a human being, presumably), and I think we can all agree that there are many things about the world that have not been explained at all. I just don't make the immediate and unjustified leap from that to the notion that those things therefore must not be explicable through nature. That's an extremely arrogant assumption to make, as it supposes that we're so wonderfully advanced in our understanding of the world that the few remaining things that we don't have explanations for must be outside of nature. Nope, not by a long shot. We may eventually get explanations for some of those things (as we have with Darwin for the variety of species), while some we may never understand, but that doesn't mean that there's something supernatural going on. It simply means we're not smart enough to explain everything.

Er, folks? It's "deity", not "diety". The 'e' comes before the 'i', just like in "atheist".

Ironic, isn't it?

Answer 5

Atheists generally reject religions that make claims about a supernatural divinity. Such religions have collections of stories that are simply too "magical" to be believed. Such religions have tales of miracles that are completely unverrifiable, make claims that are not borne out by reality, and are often more about control and power than about helping or improving people's lives.

Atheists on this forum are mostly from America and Europe, and are surrounded and confronted most often by Christians. Atheists in the Middle East are generally much more circumspect considering the teatment that "unbelievers" recieve. Hindus, shamans, animists, Shintos, and such are not as aggressive against atheists as the Abarhamic faiths, but atheists have no reason to believe in them either. Buddhism is an internal exploration and self-discipline and makes little use of miracles, spirits, gods, or ghosts, so it rarely gets confrontational.

Answer 6

First, THANK YOU for asking a refreshing question, AND one that is a perfect example of what this forum should be used for.

So....having been raised catholic, it is definitely the christian version of god that I first most vehemently disagreed with, and then later rejected entirely.

However, I also reject the idea of any version of god.

In viewing different religions' idea of what god is, there are some versions that I find more appealing than others, and some that I could quite like. Perhaps it would be easier to believe in one version than another.....but I just can't buy it.

There just isn't any version of god out there that I can buy into.

Answer 7

Nicely put.
I can only speak here for myself, and say that as my upbringing was a vaguely Christian one, I am more conversant with its stories and theology than I am with any other. Therefore I feel more at ease debating the non-existence of its specific god than I would debating the non-existence of any other (even if the god itself was the same, as it appears to be in many religions), simply because I am more familiar with the 'proofs' of one faith than the rest.

However, as has been said with stunning eloquence already here (I believe I'm indebted to Jim Darwin for this one), since I find no more evidence for the existence of one god than I do for another, the standards of atheism are equally applied to all, and I believe it is more likely that man, spread all over the world, conceived different versions of the same idea - the ultra-human or creator-god, than I do that any of these creators was actually responsible for the creation of the universe, the world, or man.

Answer 8

No religion is the correct one, and all religions have got it wrong.

There are many major religions in the world, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, and so on. Within each major religion there can also be many minor religions. For example, within Christianity there is Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and so on. Within Islam there is Shiite, Sunni etc.

In summary there are many hundreds of different religions in the world all with their devoted believers and followers. Talk to any devout religious person and they will almost emphatically insist that their religion is the right one, it’s fact, and any non-believer is doomed.

Commonsense and logic would suggest that if there was any truthful or factual basis to religion, then only one of these religions could be correct, not all of them. However, in my view, it’s highly unlikely that any of these man-made religions bear any resemblance to fact or the truth, and are more likely to be the result of simplistic human intelligence looking for an escape from reality.

Answer 9

Atheists simply do not believe in god(s). The fact that the exchanges that you see in Q&A involve Christians vs. non-believers, rather than Hindus or what not, has to do with the fact that Christians are the ones who are constantly, loudly and vociferously proclaiming that they, exclusively, are on the train to glory, and if you want a ticket, you must say the magic words.

In other words.... it is the spouting whale that gets harpooned.

By the way... Buddhism is not about dieties... it is about self-realization... spirituality.

Answer 10

I personally don't believe in this "Creator or supreme being" because I don't see any reason why it should be!

Because there is no proof at all they existed..
Please ask yourself, what's the difference between your imaginary "god" and a child believes Santa will get him something for being good through the year.!

Back to your question, should I read the all the world's Imaginary beings to know weather they could exist or not?!