What is the philosphy behind athiests?

Question

I mean, what do u believe n if u don't believe n God?

Answer 1

There is no god is their [philosophy
SD

Answer 2

Why do I have to believe in anything?



Belief is thinking that something is so with no evidence for it.

How many things in life do you have zero evidence for?

All our lives we learn. We observe how things are and what happens. The thing that makes humans unique on this planet is our ability to build complex models of the universe, or our bit of it, in our heads and say, "If I do XXX then YYY will happen and then those guys will do ZZZ."

So, for almost any situation we build a model from our experiences and work out what we think we should do to get what we want. With lots of experience we get a good model. With little experience or if we let our desires cloud our experience we get a poor model.


So I do not believe anything. I have experience, knowledge and I have trust. I trust that the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow. My experience says it has done it every day of my life. My knowledge tells me that it has done the same for billions of years and shows no sign of changing.

I trust that the person driving on the other side of the road will not cross over and hit me. My experience says that this is very rare and so is unlikely. My knowledge says that while rare, it does happen and if it does it is a Bad Thing. So as I drive I stay aware of what the oncoming traffic is doing.

This applies to everything that you do. Belief just messes up your judgment because it is based purely on wishful thinking and has zero basis on experience or knowledge.

Answer 3

I believe facts (or, at worst, accept likelihoods based on evidence)

If I don't know something, or there is no evidence for something, I don't fill the gap with the word 'god'.

If I have to conceptualize, or imagine something, or make a guess, I am perfectly clear that this is what I am doing.

Atheism is simply a word given to the non-belief of deities. It isn't a philosophy or a collective or a group.

Answer 4

at first, the assumption of evolution is a proof of a organic technique, no longer a prescription for use as a foundation for a philosophical or religious handbook for society. 2d, survival of the fittest does no longer recommend the main effectual. It skill that those organisms that have the particular features to enable them to proceed to exist long adequate to reproduce will bypass those features directly to the subsequent era. The trait may well be some thing so trouble-free as color, or the capacity to digest a various plant, or another such trait. you're admitting your very own animosity in direction of evolution considering the fact which you grow to communicate it as attainable on your ideals. in spite of your perceptions, there's a great quantity of info for evolution and unquestionably none that prohibits it.

Answer 5

i believe in living the life you have and learning from experiences that are part of life. but beliefs for other atheists are broad and not all the same. It's not like we believe in nothing just because we don't believe in a god.

Answer 6

I believe in science. Not everyone has to believe in a higher power. I believe in living my life, raising my children, leaving great values bestowed up on the family name. Possibly making an impact on the world no matter how small it may seem. I believe in respecting my surroundings, volunteering to clean up beaches, parks, highways... you get my drift

I believe in living my life in a way that doesn't hurt the people around me and getting what I can from what time I have here on this planet...

thanks for asking.

Answer 7

Heather, everyone's unique and different, but there are people in this world (a tiny minority, granted) who quite simply don't believe. I'm one of those people. I certainly wouldn't be so presumptuous to categorize other non-believers in deities as having no other beliefs. I can only speak for myself.

Answer 8

One can reasonably believe in anything that is supported by evidence. God isn't.

Answer 9

That is like asking, "what do people who do not collect stamps believe?"

An atheist is one who simply lacks belief in a supernatural supreme deity/deities. Apart from that our beliefs are as varied as they come.

Answer 10

I believe in a great number of things that have been proven. I do not believe in a diety.

Answer 11

I find it interesting that atheists think they can reason at all. They can only reason by borrowing Christian capital. First, since all atheists I've encountered and read are "materialists" (meaning all reality is limited to what can be encountered by the senses; or empiricism) there can't be uniformity in nature because it presupposes sovereign control by something outside nature (God, or at least a god). But in order to do science - any science - one must assume uniformity in nature; otherwise, why go to the lab. What was "discovered" (revealed by God) yesterday, wouldn't be the same today. In the end, the atheist must admit epistemologically he lives second to second. He certainly can't build upon past experience, because "that was then and this is now." This is why atheists have come up with the silly theory of "order in chaos." It is logically bankrupt.

Logic brings us to the next point. Logic cannot be done by the atheist because logic doesn't exist. It can't because it can't be sensed (seen, tasted, felt etc). Additionally, class concepts are out as well. For instance, if someone calls me a human and then kills me, is "humanity" then destroyed? Of course not, but for the atheist, it must be because class concepts can't exist. Or if I write 2+3=5 on paper then asking the atheist if the 2 is the number 2? They must answer yes. When you erase the number two, explain that the concept of two (or "two-ness") is now destroyed. Math is destroyed. Therefore, the atheist can't reason at all. Besides how could he make up his mind on such matters?

Mind doesn't exist either. The mind is always reduced to the brain for the atheist - because the mind can't be empirically explained. However, how does he explain the will, decisions, causality, or emotions? He can't - he'll go into some drivel about chemical reactions in the brain (which hasn't been proven). Besides, scientists cannot even theoretically prove the "electrical impulses/synaptic activity" is where thought/decisions take place. EVEN if it were, then he must admit that we are high-level Pavlovian dogs with no control. We then have to say that whatever you say means nothing because for all we know, your brain has gone whacko, but we can't hold you accountable (sounds like our current courtrooms) because you're just a product of a series of antecedent causes (behaviorism/psychology) which caused you to say what you did. So Hitler was not at fault, he just did what his upbringing caused his brain to "think" and he did what came natural. No minds with which to debate, no decisions, no responsibility, and no morals.

Next, this brings us to absolute morals. Every time I discuss the atheists irrational position, morals invariably brings the statement: "there are no moral absolutes." This would imply an absolute standard - a God. I usually ask if I can end the debate by shooting him. He is now caught because he has to appeal to a moral principle to plead his survival. When this is pointed out, it's followed by the irrational rebuttal: "but our actions OUGHT to be done for the common good." “Ought to” implies that there is a reason (moral code) to do something, and besides as an atheist (with his humanistic worldview) anybody should be able to do whatever he pleases (besides he has no mind). Why should he be compelled to make anybody else happy? Oh, and how can morals exist anyway?? Can you see them, touch them, taste them or hear them? None of us can; therefore, the atheist is compelled to have no morals (which is still a moral classification). Further, this means they can have no laws. What are laws? They are legal code written for the protection of the just, and punishment of the unjust. They are all based, and necessitated, by morals. Ever wonder why our courtrooms are so messed up - look for your nearest atheistic lawyer!

The bottom line is: atheists can't do inductive reasoning (or science) because they don't believe in the uniformity of nature; they can't do deductive reasoning because they can't have class concepts or the tool of logic because for him they can’t exist; they have no minds to make decisions and no moral reason why to serve anybody but themselves.
The very fact that atheists come into these groups and chat rooms to debate their position - proves OUR position because they are admitting there is such a thing as logic (which isn't tangible) and have minds with which to debate.
They have one last rebuttal which they think settles it: "but we DO science, we DO logic, and MAKE decisions." To which I'd respond, "Yes you do, and therefore what you say with your mouth and what you do are in conflict. Once again, atheists borrow from Christian capital in that we can account for why there is logic, morals, uniformity in nature, and have a mind, will, and emotions. This, in reality, means atheists know there is a God but, as Paul says “you are suppressing that knowledge in unrighteousness."

In the end - their "philosophy" besides being bankrupt is humanism, hedonism, and a quest for autonomy.

If you're logical, you'll be a Christian - besides I don't have enough faith to be an atheist