Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by googlefudge
However, the support for my lack of belief in gods and the supernatural, and indeed for my belief in the
lack of gods and the supernatural, is so strong and well tested that I am really really confident that those
beliefs are indeed true and well grounded in evidence.

Poppycock.

You have no evidence. You have no proof. And yet you say you believe in being rational. Yet all you have is a belief. The belief that you are right, even though you have no evidence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well it's true, and I like to believe true things, which makes my believing that pretty unsurprising.

"I like to believe true things."

So much so that you claim to have proof there is no God. All you have is your belief that you are right. Yet that's still not "true".

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sure, anthropomorphism and the like were prevalent too, but if we are going right back to 'pre-historic religion' then almost everything we know is known indirectly and is far from conclusive.

Ok. Do the other Great Apes worship gods?

No, of course they don't, they can't conceive of concepts that complex.

Our common ancestor with today's Great Apes would also not have been able to conceive of entities
as sophisticated as a being we would term a god [and/or all the other concepts that go along with
that].

At some point in our evolution we developed that capability.

For humans to have worshipped gods from the get-go, then our non-human ancestors must have invented
gods before we ever evolved.

There are a number of reasons to think that that didn't happen.

One. Gods and all their associated mental baggage are rather complex and very likely require complex societies
to go with them. The evidence I have seen seems to tie complex religious beliefs and big gods to the development
of bigger and more complex societies. And the increasing complexity in the religions mirrors the increased
complexity of the society they are embedded in.

Two. Pretty much everywhere not Africa was colonised by one small tribe leaving Africa and spreading across the
rest of the planet [hence the even more limited genetic diversity of non-African descended peoples].
Religious ideas are sticky, they hang around, and so if those peoples believed in complex gods, it's very likely
that so would all of their descendents and the civilisations they would build. And all those religions would be
likely to share a common root base as they would all stem from the same tribes beliefs.
However what we find is that by no means all civilisations actually do/did believe in gods, and those that do do
not seem to share a common source religion.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Poppycock.

You have no evidence. You have no proof. And yet you say you believe in being rational. Yet all you have is a belief. The belief that you are right, even though you have no evidence.

Sadly you wouldn't know what rationality was if it looked like Channing Tatum and performed
a strip dance in front of you. [See I can totally to modern pop culture references, I'm hip yo]

I did say that the argument wasn't convincing, as in it's really bad at convincing people, because
it relies on far too many other things being accepted and understood.

For example to accept and understand it you would need to understand Bayesian probability
theory and accept conclusion drawn from it...

In your case, and long before that, you would have to accept that you can't justifiably believe
things based on faith.

Until you accept that this argument would be... well is.. meaningless to you.

That doesn't make it wrong, just not convincing.

Which is why I usually argue for a lack of belief in gods as opposed to a belief in the lack of gods.
Not because I don't feel my position is justified, because it is.
But because that justification is near impossible to convey on an internet forum successfully particularly
to anyone without the common reference points of already accepting science, skepticism, rationality and
rejecting faith based belief formation.

You don't accept science [for all your protestations otherwise], skepticism, rationality, and you do believe
in faith based belief formation.

Originally posted by Suzianne
There is no "realization" as it isn't true. One day you thought you had enough "evidence" to come to a decision. And that is what it was. A decision.

Apart from the fact that you can indeed 'come to a realisation' about something even
if that something isn't true, your stamping your feet and simply stating that it's not
true that your god doesn't exist doesn't constitute any sort of argument for your case.

Because you don't have an argument for your case.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Taken all together, what we have is solid evidence we came to be via natural and non-sentient processes
in a universe that has either existed in one form or another for eternity, or came about itself through natural
and non-sentient processes.
We have solid evidence that we have no souls or spirit, and that there is consequently no such thing as an ...[text shortened]... it to be true and is indeed reasonable to believe [or even claim to know] that it's not true.

This is a result of bastardizing science and shoehorning your belief system into it. Half the things you say that "we know" in this paragraph, we do NOT "know".

Not having evidence for is not proof against. 2000 years ago, hell, 200 years ago, we had no evidence that Man could survive in outer space and travel to the moon and spend days there and walk upon it. Clearly, having no evidence "for" is not proof "against".

We have no proof that universe creation is "non-sentient" (I assume you meant "having a non-sentient cause" ). Oh, the cause was natural, alright, but it was also sentient. And we do NOT "know" that it was "non-sentient". We have no proof.

We have no proof that we do not have a soul. Just because we have no "evidence" that we do have a soul, is not proof that we do not. (See my second paragraph.)

And then you, who raises "science" to almost (wait for it) "god-like" status, you then cite what is "reasonable to believe" and "or even claim to know", after throwing cold water on everything theists "claim to know". Talking about what is "reasonable to believe" or even a claim to know, is not science. Yet you speak of these things like it was.

And yes, calling religion "unsubstantiated" is a hell of a lot closer to the truth than just declaring that it is "wrong", with no proof. You just really, really, really, really, really want there to be no god, and so you fabricate nebulous "evidence" against one just to feel better. And yes, there might be some comfort taken to say that scientifically the chances of a God is minuscule. Yet, you STILL have no proof.

The odds of winning a huge lottery is minuscule, too. Yet someone still wins.

Again, having no evidence FOR is not proof AGAINST.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Apart from the fact that you can indeed 'come to a realisation' about something even
if that something isn't true, your stamping your feet and simply stating that it's not
true that your god doesn't exist doesn't constitute any sort of argument for your case.

Because you don't have an argument for your case.

I DO "have an argument".

You just don't want to believe it.

And that's fine. But don't lie and say that I do not have an argument. Clearly I DO. You just don't believe it. That's not my fault.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I DO "have an argument".

You just don't want to believe it.

And that's fine. But don't lie and say that I do not have an argument. Clearly I DO. You just don't believe it. That's not my fault.

Ignoring the last post because as I said, there is a laundry list of things you would have
to agree with me on before even getting to that argument...

I DO "have an argument".

I should have said 'valid' argument, but as it stands you are not making any argument for
belief in your god.

If you do have an argument, make it.

You just don't want to believe it.

I don't lack a belief in god [or believe in the lack of god] because I want to.
And I don't reject your 'arguments' [if you ever make any] because I don't WANT to believe you.

I don't accept your 'arguments' because they are utterly unconvincing. In any sense of the word.

And that's fine. But don't lie and say that I do not have an argument. Clearly I DO. You just don't believe it. That's not my fault.

Again, I should have said 'valid' argument, but I wasn't lying.

You DON'T make arguments for your position, you just assert it. You certainly don't make logically
valid arguments for your position... Which are the only kind I accept as valid arguments.

So, no, not lying. What I said I believe to be justifiably true... So you can argue that I am wrong, but
I wasn't and am not lying.

I don't need to lie, I believe that I am right, and don't worry about picking a fight, which makes lying
pointless.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Psssssst... they will tell you that everyone is born an atheist.

I imagine everyone is born an UNtheist. I get the crazy feeling a 1 day old baby doesn't have any opinions on deities or lack thereof. I think it will be a lot more interested in where the next meal comes from.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok. Do the other Great Apes worship gods?

No, of course they don't, they can't conceive of concepts that complex.

Our common ancestor with today's Great Apes would also not have been able to conceive of entities
as sophisticated as a being we would term a god [and/or all the other concepts that go along with
that].

At some point in our evol ...[text shortened]... ually do/did believe in gods, and those that do do
not seem to share a common source religion.

Where did I state that early man worshiped 'complex' Gods?

I said they looked up to the heavens and made Gods of the planets. I think this could be done in a very primitive way. I wasn't implying Homo sapiens sat around discussing transubstantiation.

Originally posted by Suzianne
There is no "realization" as it isn't true. One day you thought you had enough "evidence" to come to a decision. And that is what it was. A decision.

You hear sounds behind you. Footsteps. You look round and see it is your friend. Do you 'decide' it is your friend or do you 'realise' it is your friend?
Go back to English classes.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I imagine everyone is born an UNtheist. I get the crazy feeling a 1 day old baby doesn't have any opinions on deities or lack thereof. I think it will be a lot more interested in where the next meal comes from.

Not having something is a 'lack thereof'. The correct word is atheist.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not having evidence for is not proof against. 2000 years ago, hell, 200 years ago, we had no evidence that Man could survive in outer space and travel to the moon and spend days there and walk upon it. Clearly, having no evidence "for" is not proof "against".

An example doesn't prove the rule. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. It just isn't always so. We have no evidence that Earth has a second moon. That is pretty strong evidence that Earth does not have a second moon. (I dislike the word 'proof' outside of mathematics. )

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was born an atheist....

So I can be an atheist without making a conscious mental choice about it? That means my dogs and the trees outside are all atheists. Sounds about right. Good to know.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So I can be an atheist without making a conscious mental choice about it? That means my dogs and the trees outside are all atheists. Sounds about right. Good to know.

Can you be a theist, 'without making a conscious mental choice about it?'

If not, you began life as an atheist.