are you an atheist?

Question

what are your reasons for being an atheist? for your information, i believe in God...for some reasons that will make me write a very very long question, so i hope to tell that anytime later. but i'm interested to know about the other side also. would you like to let me know?
thanks to all who answered.

Answer 1

Why I Don't Believe in the Existence of Gods:

=== 1: Simple Common Sense ===

Nothing in life has ever made me suspect that any gods really exist. I see no divine revelations, no miracles, no answered prayers, no preferential good fortune for people of any particular faith, no divine retribution for evildoers, no protection for the virtuous, the innocent or the weak. Life is exactly as we would expect it to be if there was no divine influence in the world - i.e. good and bad things come to good and bad people alike. Our lives are subject to chance, and the actions of other people, but that seems to be all.

=== 2: The Natural World ===

"Nature does all things spontaneously, by herself, without the meddling of the gods." - Titus Lucretius Carus (c.99-55 BCE).

We can see no sign of any divine involvement in the natural world. Galaxies, stars and planets form because it is in the nature of matter to do so. Living organisms evolve and diverge by the unthinking, undirected process of evolution. There is no plan, no design, just the effects of probability and the properties of matter and forces. Many people will claim to the contrary, but as far as I can tell this just reflects an ignorance about how the natural world really is, rather than the perception of any higher truth. Certainly, their arguments always evaporate in the light of reason.

=== 3: Logical Arguments ===

1: Science gives us a way to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas - i.e. to show which explanation is the most consistent with observable reality. Science shows us that great complexity does not just arise spontaneously. It is inconceivable that even the simplest bacterium could exist without something being responsible for the complexity of its structure, its biochemistry and so on. It would take the lifetimes of a billion universes for it to appear spontaneously, by pure chance - in fact it is probably safe to say that it simply could never happen. This goes all the more for human beings. It's surely no coincidence that the only thing that we regard as truly intelligent - the human brain - is also the most complex thing in the known universe. Intelligence requires enormous complexity, far beyond anything that could conceivably exist without something being responsible for its existence. By the same reasoning, it's infinitely more unlikely still that an intelligent entity capable of designing and creating an entire universe and everything in it could just exist from nowhere, from nothing, without anything being responsible for its existence. Complexity, and especially the massive complexity required for intelligence, can therefore only arise from an antecedent, non-intelligent process - In the case of life on Earth, this means biological evolution, a fact which is attested to by a vast amount of real objective evidence and valid argument. So, to the extent that science allows us to reliably distinguish between plausible ideas and implausible ideas, it effectively rules out the possibility of an intelligent entity as the uncaused cause of everything that exists.

2: We've known for thousands of years that the 'tri-omni' gods of classical monotheistic religions cannot exist. If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity existed, then human evil could not exist. Since human evil unarguably does exist, the classical monotheistic deity cannot exist (objections about 'free will' notwithstanding).

3: Quantum Mechanics strongly suggests that nothingness is a state that cannot exist in reality, since that would be 100% deterministic, and QM says that existence is probabilistic rather than deterministic. Experimental evidence supports QM. If true, then this also precludes the existence of a creator, since it would be impossible to have a state of 'nothingness' from which a 'something' could be created.

4: David Hume proved that moral values are subjective - i.e. they describe a person's response to events, rather than objective properties of events themselves. Since morals are personal and subjective, there cannot be an external, objective source of moral values - Indeed, the idea is simply incomprehensible. Therefore, any god which is claimed to be the objective source of moral values cannot possibly exist. This includes the gods of most monotheistic religions, by their usual definitions.

5: Argument from design: If everything was designed by an intelligent creator then we would have no basis for identifying things that clearly *are* designed (things made by human beings) since we would have no non-designed (i.e. natural) things to compare them with. Therefore the natural world (everything that has not been designed by humans) must be non-designed, and therefore there can't be a designer god.

6: Anything that holds information or knowledge must be made of discrete parts, such as a brain (neurons and their connections) or a computer (memory locations). Anything that is made of parts cannot be self-existent - it must be made of something pre-existing. Therefore an intelligent entity cannot be self-existent and cannot be the source of everything that exists.

7: If a 'tri-omni' god existed, then it would be his desire that all human beings have an unshakeable belief in his existence and a perfect knowledge of what behaviour he wants from us, and it would be within his capacity to achieve this. Since many people neither believe in a god nor agree on what is the right way to behave, such a god does not exist.

8: All attempts at arguing *for* the existence of any gods through logic and reason can be and have been comprehensively debunked.

=== 4: Religious Belief, Literature and Dogma ===

If any religion were true, we could reasonably expect it to produce some ideas and beliefs that people couldn't have thought up by themselves. Similarly for 'holy texts', and the rules and practices that derive from them. In fact though, religions only produce what we would expect humans to imagine or decide for themselves, on the basis of aspects of human nature such as superstition, moral judgments, xenophobia and so on. There is no sign of any divine influence here.

Religious literature, if divinely inspired, ought to be factually correct and free of contradictions, immoral ideas and absurdities. None of the holy texts fit the bill.

=== 5: Society and Culture ===

It's an observable fact that people overwhelmingly adopt the religion of their family and culture. If there was any external truth to religion, which human beings could perceive with some kind of supernatural sense, then we could reasonably expect there to be some consistency in religious belief. Instead, the distrubution of different religious beliefs is exactly as we would expect it to be if this were pure mythology, handed down through family and culture like any other kind of purely fictional story.

=== 6: Intellectual and Moral Progress ===

Religion has consistently been the enemy of intellectual progress, suppressing rational investigation of the world where it disagrees with and thus endangers religious belief (often by torture and death). There has never been, to the best of my knowledge, one single fact about the world that was brought to us by divine inspiration rather than rational investigation. How could this be, if religion were a source of truth? Religion has also consistently been the undisputed cause of much conflict, discrimination and persecution in the world, belying the existence of any kind of benevolent or moral guardian of the world.

=== 7: Rational Explanation for Religious Belief ===

As part of our evolutionary 'toolkit' of survival strategies, we have a highly developed awareness of other entities in our environment - We often notice human faces in carpet patterns, rabbit-shaped clouds and so on. There is more survival value in seeing what really *is* there, and also seeing some things that *aren't* really there, than in missing things that really are there and going hungry, or worse, ending up as someone else's lunch.

The consequence of this undeniably true aspect of human nature is that we have a natural tendency to imagine 'agents' (intelligent entities) behind natural phenomena and events in our own lives that aren't really there - i.e. gods and goddesses, demons, angels, spirits - a whole menagerie of supernatural characters. Society and culture binds up these characters with our wishes and fears, our desires for dominance and submission and shared identity, and we end up with religious belief and ritual and dogma, in thousands of different flavours throughout the world and throughout history. Religion is formalised superstition - It's just a common flaw in human nature, rather like the way we see optical illusions. We can account for the existence of religious belief perfectly well with this fact-based, rational explanation, rather than believing that there really is a supernatural realm of existence.

=== 8: Human Nature ===

Religious people will argue that humans are unique amongst all the animals in having an eternal, divine component that exists independently of the physical body - Usually referred to as a 'soul'. What exactly could a soul be? What properties could it have? What part of a person resides in the soul?

If it's postulated that consciousness, or awareness, or sense of self resides in the soul, it's difficult to see how this can be reconciled with the complete oblivion which accompanies general anaesthesia. How could a straightforward chemical, injected into the bloodstream, anaesthetise a soul so that it effectively ceases to exist during this time? If consciousness, in the form of a soul, were some kind of supernatural faculty, it would seem implausible that it could be completely disabled by a chemical.

How about some of the other things which we regard as essential parts of what makes a person what they are? How about love, compassion, reason, empathy, memory, conscious thought, character, 'spirituality' and so on? Well, there is really no plausible doubt that all these things are properties of the physical brain - We can alter all of these properties very simply with alcohol or other drugs, and observe how they change in people who have suffered significant brain damage. Previously placid people become uncontrollably violent, intelligent people become imbeciles, and so on. Stimulate the brain artificially, and the subject reports corresponding mental activity, e.g. 'religious experiences'. We can see from brain research that all these things - thought, emotion, sensation, character traits and so on - are correlated with activity in the brain, and some things can be identified with specific areas of the brain.

So, if all these faculties and characteristics of what we regard as the 'person' reside in the physical brain, as seems to be undeniably the case, and they all cease when the person dies, then what is left to be attributed to a 'soul'? As far as I can ascertain: Nothing. If there is no part of us that can continue after death, then there is no 'afterlife'... and if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is null and void.

============

There are other reasons too, but that'll do for now...

Answer 2

Here's why I do not believe in God:

First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.

In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).

So to begin with, I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that GOD INTERVENES TO CIRCUMVENT NATURAL LAWS.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it becomes impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "It is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."

However, we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen). Therefore, because the scientific method leads to applicable discoveries, and the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions). A God who is not all-loving, all-powerful or all-knowing is also not sufficient for the definition of God, because any God that fails to meet these criteria becomes bound by rules that are greater than God.

If God is bound by external rules and/or does not intervene in our existence, then God is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes enormously more sense to live your life as if there were no God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God (a) to help people deal with the pain and fear associated with death and loss, and (b) to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Humans are always searching for explanations. When none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare that the cause of the unexplained was "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles (coincidences) and laws were ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grew up around it.

Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well-being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.

So that's why I call myself an atheist. And you know what? It's okay if you remain a believer.

Answer 3

>are you an atheist?

Yes. More specifically, I am a weak atheist, that is to say I believe God is theoretically possible but I just don't think the evidence suggests his existence at the moment.

>what are your reasons for being an atheist?

Evidence and logic just don't suggest that God exists, it just doesn't make sense. There's Occam's Razor, the Problem of Evil and even just the fact that omnipotence doesn't seem to be a very likely thing for a being to have (and omniscience may be completely impossible). Oh, and of course the fact that there are so many different religions on Earth rather than just one. The existence of God just doesn't make sense when you look at the evidence and apply proper logic to it.

Answer 4

The reason for belief is not philosophical of logical; belief is ingrained in childhood. It's part of the process of human socialization. If you are a believer it's because you were imprinted with the belief, usually by your parents and your parent's church. That is why most people are the same religion as their parents. Individuals that get though this period with little or no imprinting can go on to view the world more intellectually which usually means they will be atheist.

Answer 5

Yep...I'm atheist. The reasons why are fairly long and complicated, so I'll shorten then up.

1.) Personal experiences (Asked for help, nothing but more pain)
2.) Lack of evidence.
3.) If there really WAS a god...whey's there all this sh1t goin' on?
4.) If there really WAS a one true god..why is there all the different religions?
5.) The way the people of those faiths act, makes me think that there is no god.
6.) Once you figure out why you don't believe in every god, you'll find out why I don't believe in your god.

Just to name a few....

Answer 6

Well you all have really spoken enormously on the foregoing subject. But by simple immagination and observation of the cosmos system and the awsomeness of events that happens, one can easily deduce that there is a supernatural being that controls all these activities in the universe. To me that supernatural being is what we referred to as God. When discussing issues of spiritual, Science discoverings or evidence can not be use as a basis of argument because they are the results and finding of natural being (Humans) a non spiritual entity. If you did not believe in a spiritual entity, can you explain for me where you found yourself while you ar asleep. If on the other hand, there is no God what then controls the universe and human's activities. I want to know if all the events under the sun happens concidentally? I need more clarification from my co-contributor above especially De....

Answer 7

Yes, i am an atheist. I don't claim to know anything for sure, but I do know that I've spent 30 years of my life reading, watching, listening, and praying (until about 10 years ago) for some type of confirmation of the existence of a god... and received no such confirmation.

If you count the birth of my son (after I was told I couldn't conceive) and the very existence of my marriage (to a man who lived across the entire country from me and whom I wouldn't have met if his dad hadn't died, leaving him money to buy a computer... on which we met 16 years ago)... I guess you could say those are signs from god. I don't count those, however.

The birth of my son is biology, plain and simple. And our meeting on the computer... on a pre-Web, proprietary service... was pure coincidence. To me, they are not proof of a deity.

I'm perfectly okay with others believing in god... as long as they don't pass laws enforcing the beliefs they have because of that god like abortion bans, stem cell research restrictions and gay marriage banning amendments to state constitutions while the government tries to ban it federally.

I was raised Lutheran and my mother has since converted to Catholicism. She NEEDS her belief or she couldn't survive... she has told me that in THOSE words.

I don't need that... I'm find living my life as I always have. By my wits and with the love of family and friends.

Answer 8

I believe that man created God in his image. Because each one's perception of God is different from the other's.
I am a Hindu. Hinduism is quite catholic. At one end of Hinduism is pantheism, at the other end is the permission to question the existence of God.
In Hinduism the incarnations of God are treated quite different from the concept of God, the Unmanifest Non-entity. The incarnations are either single events, or they are born to normal parents in the normal way.
There is an element of family training too, I guess. For generations it has been an academic family, with little belief in conventional Divinity.

Answer 9

Why, yes, yes I am.

I find the idea of a god existing a bit silly (a little like Santa really existing or the Toothfairy or Zeus or Thor....you get the idea) and if such a being existed then I would expect there would be some proper evidence of that - there isn't.

Answer 10

I would use the 'search for questions' tool (above) also, and type the same question, you will get this question answered hundreds of times.

Briefly, I'm an atheist/agnostic because all the evidence I see points away from religion and religious doctrine being anything like 'truth.'

So you could say I value my honesty, because I would have to lie in order to 'believe'.

I don't believe in one-hand-clapping whale-monkeys for all the same reasons.

Answer 11

Yes I'm an atheist. There is no empirical proof that any deity from any belief system is a real entity. Religion itself is a man-made form of social control - the few to control the many and I have no need for that.