Should you be an atheist?

A better question is what proof outside of the Bible and testimonials do you have for a belief in god? I used to believe in Santa Clause when I was a child, and it made me feel good knowing that if I was "good" I would receive gifts on Winter Solstice (or you may call it X-Mas).

 

You need to remove sensationalism from logic, then things should make sense.

 

 

Sensationalism from logic? Logic is hard, cold and rigid. It conforms and always does what you want it to do. There is comfort in logic, in knowing. Men who know or who think they know believe themselves superior to those who don't, we've all taken comfort in logic (I've thought it myself). I don't sensationalise what I say, emotions are not logical, they cannot be rationalised, humans cannot rationalise why I believe or what I believe in, nor can they explain why my belief makes me the person I am. Oil doesn’t mix with water, nor does love with logic. A major issue no doubt.

Hey thanks all for responses, especially flatlanderdox, your reply summarised one of my key issues, much better then I could have hoped to do. (I ramble a lot) I loved ' epistemological' that has made my day, (I’m also a geek). But anyway! As flatlanderdox said, I believe that people cannot always look to logical solutions to situations where logic is removed. There is no logic in the love of men and women; there is no logic therefore in the love of God. (Why would he love a murderer in a logical world?) Let me use an allegory to try explain further, Dark matter for instance. Do you believe in it? Yes. Can you hold it, or see it? No. Infact it exists, how do we know it exists? Well by its influence on other spatial bodies. The same applies in essence with my theory on my own belief. I cannot see God, I cannot touch God nor can I ever hope to understand God. Yet I know he exists through the influence he has had on me, on my life and on the goodness I’ve done (and hope to do) and that of other people. A few bones or books doesn’t control my beliefs, my illogical soul does.

 

Yes, perhaps logic should be bourne into love. We should love according to what is logically best for us, suitable for us. It just doesn’t work like that. That’s the complexity behind the human mind that logic will never be able to understand. Logical love (if it even exists) is not spontaneous; it is not essentially 'true' love. Able men are given a choice in life to do as they please, good or bad. Gods love for me is absolute, i have no fear of God, I’m in his love, that’s my point if you give yourself to him and him to you won’t be tortured. An 80 year life of goodness and humility in exchange for eternity of paradise, Is that such a bad deal? I do all my belief alone by the way, my friend’s don’t even know I’m religious; I investigate both aspects of the argument. My mind is open to science (mans best triumph and his worst) yet in the confines of my head, my heart I have my love for God. Unexplainable and illogical, though love is love when you know it, undeniable in its element.

 

You start by asking if you should be an atheist but then the only argument you give for why you have your beliefs is that you are not hurting anyone by having them. If that’s your only reason for believing then yes you should be an atheist. If the reason is that it makes you feel good then I would still say be an atheist. Whenever you accept things that are counter factual you are opening the door for trouble and getting a warm fuzzy feeling is not a good reason to do that.

To answer your question. Yes, I personally think you should be an atheist, however, that's only relevant to me, not you. What you should ask yourself is this: Did Jesus conquor death for your sins? Did Jesus get nailed to a cross and rise from the dead? Do you believe that he worked the miracles that he did? IF you do believe in these, then you are a "christ follower" or "christian". If you are skeptical, don't know the answer then perhaps Christian isn't the right label for you.

 

I do question, however, why you based God on feeling good. I went to church all the time i grew up with my parents. Head coverings and all, and yes, there were times i thought i was close to God but... in truth, the most compelling reason to have God was because you had someone who loved you. Read the bible a bit closer and it's not really a god of love and mercy, it's simply a construct in your mind. The fact you don't go to church but experience a closeness to God simply means you are searching for something to identify with and trust in, but you are a skeptic of the bible by nature.

 

Food for thought but questioning is a great way to enlightenment. I respect your courage in this instrospection. 

"Yes, perhaps logic should be bourne into love. We should love according to what is logically best for us, suitable for us. It just doesn’t work like that. That’s the complexity behind the human mind that logic will never be able to understand. Logical love (if it even exists) is not spontaneous; it is not essentially 'true' love. Able men are given a choice in life to do as they please, good or bad. Gods love for me is absolute, i have no fear of God, I’m in his love, that’s my point if you give yourself to him and him to you won’t be tortured. An 80 year life of goodness and humility in exchange for eternity of paradise, Is that such a bad deal? I do all my belief alone by the way, my friend’s don’t even know I’m religious; I investigate both aspects of the argument. My mind is open to science (mans best triumph and his worst) yet in the confines of my head, my heart I have my love for God. Unexplainable and illogical, though love is love when you know it, undeniable in its element."

 

i'm not here to deny the existance of god.. god may be out there, maybe not. I am just curious that why are you so sure that by believing that Jesus Christ, the son of god, will ensure you a ticket to heaven? Do you really strongly believe that jewish, muslim or buddihst will be burned in eternal hell fire after they die just because they are not christian?

my point is... why the christian holy bible?? when there is very high possibility that it was written by human being (and not words of god)? I am sure as a christian you have to believe that other religions are not the true religion from god. Why every religion (be it christianity or islam or whatever) has to deny other religions? based on what basis can you claim that your holy bible is the true "words" from god and not the muslim's quran or the jewish holy book?

If there is a god, do you really think he will let the good guy who happens to be non-christian go to hell? And don't you think it's a irony to god if he let a chirtsian serial killer go to heaven (just because he is a believer)?

I have to apologize first before i say this... but if god really needs us to acknowledge him as the omnipotent god in order to let us into the heaven, don't you think he is very insecure with himself? Don't you think If you want people to respect and believe in you, terrifying is not the solution??

In my opinion, if there is a god, non of the religions on earth that force people into believing him, are the true religion from god.

axarei lavan, 

Then, Atheism is both a delusion and a religion. Secularists literally dominate Europe.

First off if you are a Christian, then read C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity. (Lewis being yet another great British Christian.) Just a note, Atheists surely would have never freed slaves. Remember, evolution promotes slavery. 

Lewis was a great thinker that went from agnostic/atheist to Christian. Second stop believing the lie told long enough that Atheism is a rational belief, and that Christians are ignorant.

 0 x 0 = Atheism.

Christians have a long history of great thinkers within the Christian Church movement, and yes, just like Atheists and Atheim, they have had a fair share of bad guys amongst them. Not as many as Atheism maybe, but some bad things were done by professing Christians throughout the ages.

I had an atheist over at DebatingChristianity.com come up with a figure of about one-million seven-hundred thousand victims of Christian promoted violence.

Lenin and Stalin with their Marxist Atheism driving their movement killed tens and tens and tens of millions of human beings that dissented of their belif-system. China's atheisys are not far behind. One can only imagine what has happened in other marxist (atheist) countries like Cuba, since as soon as the atheist takes over, we get no info allowed out on what is happening anymore.

Stay a questioning and thinking Christian, and join the long line of intelligent Christiana since the beginning of the Church culture.

And go to Church. You'll find one that suits your liking. One thing about modern-day Christianity, and unlike Atheism, it is wonderously free and diverse.

slumber77,

"In my opinion, if there is a god, non of the religions on earth that force people into believing him, are the true religion from god."

That was from you.

Could you please provide one statement in the New Testament writings - that are the current offerings of today - that "force" anyone into believing in God?

I have read that both Jesus and Paul said good things about non-believers.

I'll re-read again today (since it is a fats read) but I'm pretty sure that "forced belief" is not a Christian doctrine presented in the New Testament.

And, if a person doesn't believe in God or hell, the Christian belief-system shouldn't bother any skeptic or freethinker (who oddly, all think exactly the same) the way we see it does on college campuses, politics, or this website.

Welcome Tom, my fellow Englishman. I do not deny that religion has a lot of emotion attached, I would say you have to work out for yourself what you believe, criticise things, think about things, question yourself. If you remain religious so be it, but at least you will have tried. Which Uni are you going to?

Is there any particular reason that you're making disingenuious blanket statements about atheism?

Do you have anything to back up this opinion of yours?

I fail to see how anyone could allude to the fact that atheism is anything but diverse - the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in god. We differ on many other key issues, ideas, life style choices. 

I'm glad to hear that you dont follow cheerleading clubs out go gain members and political power.

However, the issue of any deity is simple, what evidence is there?

The Bible, or any holy book for that matter is not an objective book and certainly was not written as a biology textbook. The stories within discribe a hero who fights on behalf of a chosen people. The stories within contain fantastic claims that if you juxtipose next to Harry Potter you could see the "outside nature" or contrary to nature claims.

If it makes no sense that Peter Pan can litterally fly, why would believing that dirt "POOF" instantaniously turned into bone make any more sense? If you rightly reject that a deity named Thor made thunder and lighting why would your claims be immune to the same logical scrutiny?

It's not a matter of what you believe. Everyone here has heard all the claims before. The key is to ask yourself WHY you accept this and ask yourself WHY you reject the mythological claims of others.

When you understand why you reject, say for example, claims of multiple armed deities, you'll understand why we reject the claim of a disimbdodied being gettting a girl pregnant or human flesh surviving rigor mortis.

The only differeance between you and I is that I reject one more deity claim than you do. When you understand why you reject all those other claims you'll understand why we reject yours as well.

 

Hey everyone, first of all I apologise for any incoherencies with my previous posts it was 3AM and I had an exam the next day, but now that’s over I believe I can think and type straight.

 

Jacob Cordingley hey, I’m headed to Manchester University to study business; hopefully it will do me some good!

 

In response to Brian37’s:

 “The Bible or any holy book for that matter is not an objective book and certainly was not written as a biology textbook.” 

You have highlighted the fundamental chasm between science and belief or religion; this gap will never in our lifetimes be bridged. The same gap exists between science and literature, the logical and the emotional. The thing is, just because you haven’t the evidence for something, or that you don’t believe it, does that mean you should reject any possibility of its existence? By closing your mind to religion, to the possibility of the miracles described in holy books and scripture, you limit your perceptions of the universe as a human. You may accuse theists of being closed minded, yes many are, however the atheism that some of you may adhere to is as closed minded and these theists. For a start I do not believe in the majority of the Old Testament as the literal interactions of God and Mankind, instead I take the word of Jesus in his benevolence and live by those ideals and his example. If the divinity of Jesus is ever disproved it will not be the end of my faith in that man, his example led billions across the world to find comfort. Having belief in nothing but yourself leaves the soul cold and empty I find. 

 

You make reference to Peter Pan, and yes you may find religion trivial, laughable and totally false. Yet the greatest thinkers of the 16^th century knew the earth was flat, people were killed for saying the earth wasn’t the center of the universe! How could anything else be true? What a load of rubbish they’d say. They were proved wrong. I’m not saying God will ever be proved or disproved, I’m trying to say that blanket rejection of any theory, or religion or belief system closes your mind to the bigger issues that face humanity. You see Thor for example was the god of Thunder and Lightning or at least symbolised it as was Zeus of the Greek Pantheon; this has been scientifically explained and therefore credibility for those respective religions died out. But a God who stands for love, how can your logic possibly begin to understand that? Your logical way of needing logical evidence to give logical conclusion is based upon preconceptions, on flawed logic. Humans can never reach the pinnacle of existence that is attributed to god, they can never and will never understand as he is said to, and because of this the vain ambition of men to transcend their mortal coils drives them to deny things they cannot understand. You fear what you know not, yet you fear needlessly. I’m a person, a mere mortal I think, question and live as you do. Yet I am at peace with myself as I know I will never be perfect; my imperfections push me forward and through God and the example of Christ I will become a greater human then ever I could have been if I didn’t believe.

 

Cheers,              Tom

I don't have anything specfic about your posts i want to quote. I have a few comments on your general ideas though.
You say emotional reasons are good reasons to believe in things (paraphrased of coure). What if those things are dangerous to the person or others? For example, someone thinks they are Napelon and that the need to conquer some land because of that belief. Now this causes a postive emotion for this person, makes him feel important. Now would you say its ok for him to believe this? or would you want him to not believe this because he will hurt him? if you say that latter then what are you going to use for why he shouldn't hurt them? Emotional reasons again? why should he take your emotions for why not to believe when his emotions to believe are more postive?  
Second, if i remember reading this thread you say logic is cold and hard. First, logic is just a process. It isn't a "thing".  So to anthropomorphize a process is downright silly. Logic can't be "cold and hard" it is just a way of discovering the validity of an argument that is all and/or truth value (a logical argument is a valid argument if you put true statements in a valid argument you get a true conclusion).  Now if you want to say that emotions should be allowed into argumentation by the above how do you determine what is valid and/or true? What way do you have to decerning if something someone wants you to believe is true or not? The above gives an example of someone who is clearly irrational in his belief but emotional arguments (rhetoric) would not necessarily convince if it was possible for that. Logic may convince him if he knows logic and will except why his beliefs are invalid in a logical sense.
Lastly, I feel that you can believe in whatever you please. Its once you either a) act on that belief or b) try to convince me that your belief is justified and true (my def of knowledge is the traditional "true justified belief" seems ok to use that here with talking about all the different reasons why that is wrong). If you want to convince me of your belief you must provide logical argumention, which you would probably want for everyone else to do. It is the way we determine if a argument is valid or not. Otherwise why accept a argument as valid??
Sorry if i'm rambling. Also if this stuff has been covered before i apologize to the people who said it, I didn't read this stuff at least not this way. 
Zach

Hahaha, seems like I somewhat predicted the future with my post earlier:

 

You know, the truth is... I'm a prophet! So worship me!

 

Uh, sweetie pie?

You do realize that this is one gigantic ad hominem attacks, right?

 

Can I let you in on a little secret?

Darwin could have raped puppies and eaten babies and that STILL DOESN'T MAKE EVOLUTION WRONG.

 

Shockley, the inventor of the transistor was a huge racist, and guess what? The transistor STILL WORKS.

 

Personal politics and beliefs cannot invalidate scientific theory. 

 

I've got another secret for you, I couldn't give a fuck whether Darwin's work fuelled the Nazi regieme, or makes Christians cry or promotes baby-eating or whatever else you want to claim. I don't care if Darwin was a nice person, what he ate for breakfast, that he married a close relative or any other dirt you could drag up on him.

Know why? Because Atheists DO NOT worship Darwin. 

Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive faiths. At maximum, only one can be correct. The fact that you believe in the Christian deity necessarily implies that you deny theirs.

Furthermore, you're putting words into the mouths of nonbelievers. Has anyone here called your emotions a psychological disorder? You simply ascribe those nice feelings with some kind of cosmic significance, and I don't. You think that the supernatural omnipotent progenitor of the universe and everything in it is giving you those warm fuzzies, and I think it's the power of suggestion and the sense of solidarity with like-minded worshippers. Not a disorder.

In fact, I recall reading about one study which suggests the propensity for belief in the supernatural is part of our genetics. So if anything it's atheists and naturalists like me that have the disorder. We're the ones that are "divergent from type" to use a psychological term.

I celebrate my fellow human's right to believe however which way he or she chooses. The thing about me being a fundamentalist agnostic was a joke. Probably an unfunny one if it got taken seriously. I'll try to make my quips more blatant in the future.

I don't deny the good in the Bible, but I don't make excuses for the bad either. Pick any book in the Bible at random and I can find you four or five things at a minimum which are repulsive to my moral intuition.

The thing you might not realize is that your favorite god-man Jesus is popular today not because his words were doubleplusgood, but rather because he had good marketing. In fact, Constantine the Great three hundred years after Jesus' supposed death probably had more to do with it than Jesus.

Bullshit. If it were necessary to appeal to the intervention of the supernatural, then there wouldn't be a theory of evolution because it wouldn't work. You can appeal to the supernatural to solve literally any scientific question in existance. ALL bets are off when you start bringing God into the equation.

Why does it rain? God is making water fall from the sky

Why do people get sick? God is smiting them

Why does the sun come up? God makes the day and the night.

God can conceivably be the explanation for literally any question we could possibly ask. Yet we don't say God causes water to fall from the sky anymore because we already have a naturalistic explanation for rain that fits with the known facts. If you really wanted to, you could make a stink about that too and argue for "intelligent water falling" or somesuch nonsense. But it's not necessary, just like "intelligent design" isn't necessary.

That's true. The more we learn, the more we discover that we have a lot more left to learn. That doesn't mean God is a good answer to those questions, it just means we have a lot more left to learn and that's it. The proper answer to any question you don't know the answer to isn't "God", it's "I don't know." Here, let me give you an example:

"How did the universe originate?"

Me: I don't know!

You: God!

Which one of us is being pretentious? Which one of us is being more honest?

Heh, actually, I agree with you. The problem is you don't seem to understand that your own words in this paragraph repudiate your belief and validate my stance. Yes, the theoretical facet of science is always changing to conform to new facts which come to light through discovery and experimentation. But a scientist's proper stance on all that which hasn't been discovered scientifically yet is withheld judgment.

If something is unsupported conjecture, i.e. GOD, you withhold judgment until that conjecture is validated. I have withheld judgment on the question of God(s). It's true that I think the possibility that the universe began as the pet project of some omnipotent timeless all knowing entity is infinitesimally small, but I think the exact same about the infinite number of other unsupported-yet-theoretically-possible propositions.

 Are you familiar with the composition fallacy?  Let me give you one example:

Major Premise: Cells are too small to see

Minor Premise: People are made of cells

Conclusion: People are too small to see.

 

Let me provide another example and see if it starts to look more familiar:

Major Premise: Atoms can't experience true feeling

Minor Premise: Humans are made of atoms

Conclusion: Humans can't experience true feeling

 

Hmm.  It's starting to sound familiar now.  By the way, save your pity, I don't need it.  Save it for one of the 25,000 people that died of prolonged starvation today.  They need it more than me. 

Don't bother talking to bubble-head, he'll just ignore then insult you for not giving him head.

Right, which is why the CHRISTIAN Democrat party has such a strong showing in the European parliament. Source. Notice that the party with the most seats (277) is the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. Some secularism!

Yeah...

He was a freemason posing as a christian. Everyone is ignorant.

That isn't a very good refutation of anything, quit using this. No one claims something came from nothing.

I'll allow the great CAPNOAWESOME to debunk this. TAKE IT AWAY, CAPN!

 

Given that atheism has no real rules outside of "don't believe in any deity" we're pretty diverse too.

I don't know. Hell is a pretty good forcer.

In the bible? What?

Again, you're forced to believe in Jesus or suffer for eternity. I.E. you are FORCED into belief.

We all think the same ON ONE SUBJECT! And some of us disagree there too! ("soft atheists" vs. "hard atheists". So you know, I'm only a hard atheist in bed. )

Besides, religious beliefs most certainly DO affect us when religious people try to rewrite lawbooks to wsuit their beliefs. The same way that Islam affects those who don't believe it when muslim terrorists commit an act of terror. 

You realize that? That's funny, because a rational person realizes that his character is moot. What matters is whether his theory holds up.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in the claims of theists. That's it. You are conflating atheism with communist ideology. Why? Because you' don't know any better. You're ignorant. 

Well, Tom... atheist is only one word that describes me - and, on that note, describes very little of me.

 

I do not care what you believe one way or another - I would never EXPECT you to believe anything other than what you desire to.

 

However, I found it pertinent to correct a historical error you made in saying that the "freedoms your country and mine enjoy are based on Christian principles." (paraphrased)...

 

This simply is NOT true. The freedoms that have evolved into our governments, over time, to what we have today have NOT come from Christianity - they have come from secularists and humanists standing AGAINST the oppression of various religions (including Christianity).

 

Take the overwhelming majority of secularists like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, etc. who were NOT Christians - but secularists. America was founded on secular doctrine. Britain's government, likewise, absorbed values of secularists.

 

In reality, the bible teaches its followers to be terrorists to their people. Verses such as "whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman" (2 Chronicles 15:13) ... or Luke 19:27 which says, from Jesus' own lips, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - these verses are hardly reflective of a religion of peace and love, rather one of anger, hatred, and barbarity. I can give you countless more examples of biblical hatred toward mankind, should you fancy such.

 

I must stress - the only reason Christianity is "peaceful" today - is because it has absorbed these values from secularism and humanism. Christianity has been, historically, as terroristic (and worse) than Islam is today.

 Turn with me to Luke - Chapter 19 - Verse 27:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Or, perhaps, John 3:36: "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

how about Luke 11:23, "He that is not with me is against me"

or Romans 16:17&18: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

2 Corinthians 6:14-17:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."

Care for any more verses to choke on? 

WTF? Since when has evolution ever promoted slavery??? Your ignorance does not excuse your shamless slander.

However, the bible wholy approves of slavery. Passages like Luke 12:46-47 liken God to being a slave owner who says those whom do not submit to him "shall be beaten with many stripes". I can give you a rundown of bible-supported slavery if you like



WTF? What is this? Is this some random bullshit you made up to pretend Atheism is nothing? What kind of reacion would you have if I said Christianity is the square root of negative two? Your immaturity here boggles the mind!



My... you are quick to slander atheists on a wholesale level, aren't ya? Might you have an example of an atheist whom killed ANYONE in THE NAME OF ATHEISM? Marxism is Marxism - not Atheism.



Yes... these guys are some evil fuckers... however... would you care to point out where they are doing shit in the NAME OF ATHEISM??? Bush sent us to war with Iraq because of his belief in God - he literally sent us there in the name of what he worships!!! - Will you give an example of an atheist doing similar?



Thanks to Humanism.

So when I go in to work today to pick up my check, If my boss says "I cant pay you this period" should I use something other than the lack of an emperical check to quit? Or do I quit because I didnt get paid?

"We are not just robots" Yea, so? Just because we have emotions and react emotionaly doesnt mean that natural emotions cant fool us.

Read the following pattern based on your words.

"Allah can be found not just merely on emperical evidence"

"Yahwey can be found not just merely on emperical evidence"

"Jesus can be found not just merely on emperical evidence"

Do you see the fallacy you are commiting based on this pattern?

The reality is that  people do base their beliefs on things other than evidence but just because they think it is evidence is merely mistaking emotions as a replacement for evedence.

Dont get stuck on labels in that example, just look at the pattern and try to understand that other sects and other religious people do not question there warm fuzzy feelings and mistake them for evidence. You are not doing anything differently.

You like what you believe and that is all that is going on here. Human flesh does not magically POOF pop out of dirt. There is no such thing as invisiable godsperm and human flesh cannot survive rigor mortis.

If people dont need "emperical evidence" for those claims I find that sad and disturbing. Certainly you dont buy multiple armed deities or 72 virgins? Why not? 

You dont buy multiple armed deities or 72 virgins for the same reason I dont by godsperm or survival or rigor mortis. When you understand that you'll understand why I reject your deity claims as well.

"Allah will give you rivers of milk and wine in heaven". We know that milk, wine and rivers are real so therefore Allah is the one true god.

"Yahwey told the Hebrews they would have their own nation" Isreal is a nation and Jews live their so the Jewish god is the only real god.

"Apollo pulled the sun across the sky with a chariot". Ancient romans litterally believed this as passionately as Muslims believe in Allah today and as passionately as Christians believe in the birth and death of Jesus.

Since we see statues to Apollo and famous ancient Romans talked of him, Apollo was a real god?

Does it ever occure to people of any religion that they merely baught a myth and like believing that myth? If the ancient people cant buy fiction and falsely call it fact.....and if others outside your current deity claim can buy fiction and believe falsely that it is fact, what makes you think you are immune to human behaivor?