Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Can you be a theist, 'without making a conscious mental choice about it?'

If not, you began life as an atheist.

I would say you can't be either at birth. Since I think either way it's a conscious informed decision.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I would say you can't be either at birth. Since I think either way it's a conscious informed decision.

Then you would be wrong sir.

My atheism is a natural state, there since birth. God is your thing, not mine. I am not defined in any way by something you have decided to believe in. My 'atheism' is a lack of God in my life, nothing more, It didn't require a decision, unlike becoming a Christian.

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.
That depends. I would say no, an atheist is a person lacking belief in any god or gods. I see no need to extend it to dogs or trees.

Sounds about right. Good to know.
As always, I urge you to say what you mean rather than what might be sarcasm or might not. Sarcasm, especially when done vaguely, just doesn't work on the internet.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I would say you can't be either at birth. Since I think either way it's a conscious informed decision.

Belief isn't a decision.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I understand the position (what I would call the default position) of not believing in God for what you would call lack of 'proof', I don't know that I have come across a claim that there is proof of no God. Thanks

I would call it the default position too. 🙂 The position of lacking belief in any claim is always the default from which ...[text shortened]... an it's wrong, just not particularly effective at changing peoples
minds.

EDIT: fixed typo.

We have solid evidence that we have no souls or spirit, and that there is consequently no such thing as an afterlife of any kind.

How do you know and where is the evidence?

In an article published in the Scientific American 3/14/13, it talks about how science can now 'detect' who we are thinking about. I mean 1000 years ago somebody would not have been ale to tell who someone else was thinking about, let alone comprehend the possibility. Science would not have been able to do that 20 years ago. Isn't really a matter of detection? Could it be that from a scientific point of view, we are just unable to detect these things like an afterlife or soul give the current set of tools and technology? Maybe given time 20 years or a 1000 years it would be possible? Personally we all will know the truth one day with regards to the afterlife, and it won't be because of science.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-researchers-can-detect-who-we-are-thinking-about/

I recognise that this isn't convincing as it requires years of study/education to get all the necessary theory and
evidence and you have to accept the premises of scientific skepticism and rationality on top of that before you
could find this argument convincing. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just not particularly effective at changing peoples
minds.

But it doesn't mean it's right either does it?

Thanks for the long post, I know it took some time and I appreciate it.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
In an article published in the Scientific American 3/14/13, it talks about how science can now 'detect' who we are thinking about. I mean 1000 years ago somebody would not have been ale to tell who someone else was thinking about, let alone comprehend the possibility. Science would not have been able to do that 20 years ago. Isn't really a matter of detection?

The very fact that we can detect what people are thinking tells us that peoples thoughts are physical and thus require the physical brain and do not depend on a 'soul'. Scientists can even go further and affect peoples thoughts. And we have known for a very long time that diseases and age affect peoples thoughts. It all adds up to a strong argument that there is no soul and that the mind cannot function nor exist separately from the physical brain.

Originally posted by yoctobyte

We have solid evidence that we have no souls or spirit, and that there is consequently no such thing as an afterlife of any kind.

How do you know and where is the evidence?

In an article published in the Scientific American 3/14/13, it talks about how science can now 'detect' who we are thinking about. I mean 1000 years ago somebody wou ...[text shortened]... right either does it?

Thanks for the long post, I know it took some time and I appreciate it.

In an article published in the Scientific American 3/14/13, it talks about how science can now 'detect' who we are thinking about. I mean 1000 years ago somebody would not have been ale to tell who someone else was thinking about, let alone comprehend the possibility. Science would not have been able to do that 20 years ago. Isn't really a matter of detection? Could it be that from a scientific point of view, we are just unable to detect these things like an afterlife or soul give the current set of tools and technology? Maybe given time 20 years or a 1000 years it would be possible? Personally we all will know the truth one day with regards to the afterlife, and it won't be because of science.

Well, first I would like to note that as souls+brain is more complicated [much more] than just brain, that this makes
souls+brain much less likely a-priori which means that given a total and utter lack of evidence for souls it is much more
probable that we don't have them. This isn't a 50/50 thing just because there are two options. One is inherently much
more likely than the other.

Getting to your question about this being whether we could detect souls... [please note, I am massively simplifying out of necessity]

There are two parts to this.
One is that we can now see cause and effect between actions in the brain [or damage to specific parts of the brain] and
peoples thoughts and actions and personality. This is a very strong indication that it is our brains that are dictating how
and what we think.

Two... There is a thing in physics called a Feynman Diagram [sometimes Fermi Diagram] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram

These diagrams are representations of the underlying mathematics of quantum mechanics applied to particle/force interactions.
The key thing for our purposes is that if you have two matter particles come close and interact by exchanging a force particle,
you can also smash those particles together to create that force particle.
This means that by smashing all kinds of particles together you can discover all the forces by which they interact.

Now as you are probably aware, physicists are always building bigger and more powerful particle accelerators to smash
particles together at higher and higher energies to try to create more and more exotic particles and learn their properties
and so gain new insights into the fundamental laws of physics. And that it's highly unlikely that we have detected all the
forces/particles that can exist.
But, those accelerators [the LHC being the newest and most powerful] run at incredibly high energies with particles
colliding at a tiny fraction below the speed of light.

Every particle and force that exists and operates at the energies of normal matter in the world around us has already been detected.
We know all the fundamental laws of physics that apply at the energies at which we exist.

So if there was some kind of soul interacting with the matter in human brains, the force by which it interacts would have already
been discovered.
Just like in twhitehead's post earlier where he made an analogy with the possibility of the Earth having a second moon.
The fact that we have not found one is incredibly strong evidence that one isn't there.

And Three, We have strong evidence that the universe has 'evolved' naturally over the last ~13.8 billion years and that
our species has evolved from simple life forms after ~4 billion years or so, with creatures with brains existing for ~500
million years [ish] and finally we arrive a couple of hundred thousand years ago.... And then according to you we suddenly
magically gain a soul... This isn't plausible. This is a vast [and to us inhospitable] universe that has lasted an unimaginably
long time and then on one tiny speck of matter in this cosmos of ~ten thousand billion billion solar systems a bunch of hairless
monkeys that fall out of trees a lot suddenly decide that the whole universe was built for them by a god that looks like them
and that they have special magic souls that live on in an afterlife because they are afraid to die...

Now, nothing in life is absolutely certain, and all knowledge about the world is probabilistic.
But given that brains+souls are a-priori less likely than just brains.
And given that we have strong evidence that it is the brain that guides our thoughts, deeds, and personality.
And given that we do know the laws of physics that apply at these energy levels and they leave no room for souls.
And given that we have no reason to suppose that we are special and that we would suddenly have gained a soul
after hundreds of millions of years of creatures not having souls...

There is only one reasonable conclusion. There are no such things as souls or afterlives.

But it doesn't mean it's right either does it?

No it's right because it's a logically and evidentially sound argument [in it's full, I'm never ever going to fit that on
an internet forum, form]. But I recognise that it's not convincing to anyone who doesn't already accept the underlying
knowledge and methodology. An argument can be completely correct but psychologically unconvincing.
An argument can also be psychologically convincing and not be correct. Most political 'arguments' fall into that category.

Thanks for the long post, I know it took some time and I appreciate it.

And thankyou, your questions have been reasonable and well put. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
Belief isn't a decision.

So you're saying I can never decide to become an atheist?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Then you would be wrong sir.

My atheism is a natural state, there since birth. God is your thing, not mine. I am not defined in any way by something you have decided to believe in. My 'atheism' is a lack of God in my life, nothing more, It didn't require a decision, unlike becoming a Christian.

So Christians that become atheists are not making an informed decision? I tend to agree. 😀

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So Christians that become atheists are not making an informed decision? I tend to agree. 😀

I would point to the holes in your logic sir, but i'm having problems locating the logic.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you're saying I can never decide to become an atheist?

Ok, how about you decide to believe that the moon is made from cheese...

Beliefs are not generally something you decide to have.

You currently [I assume] think that some version of the Christian god exists and is real [for
whatever reason or reasons].

I wouldn't suppose you could just decide to believe that that god does not exist and isn't
real any more than I could just decide to believe that it does exist.

What could happen however is that you come across an argument or evidence or go searching
yourself and that argument or evidence changes the way you think about this and you discover
that you no longer believe that a god exists. [this can be a very long and circuitous process].

I have heard many stories from people who were Christians and who became atheists where
they actually were studying their religion to get to know it better [in the well known example
of prominent atheist Matt Dillahunty he was studying to become a priest] and in their studies
they found themselves more and more troubled by what they found until they came to the
realisation that they no longer believed that a god existed. They certainly didn't just decide
not to believe any more.

Is atheism the default position?
by Matt Slick

Many atheists claim that atheism is the default position. In other words, they claim that when persons are born, they are naturally atheists and that it is only through indoctrination that they become theists. But, this claim is nothing more then an unsubstantiated opinion. How does an atheist know that people are not hardwired to believe in God? How does an atheist know that children don't naturally believe in God and have to be taught not to believe in God?

If the atheist says that it must be a cognitive choice to believe in God, then again we have to ask how the atheist knows this. People believe in things without really understanding why, and oftentimes they're surprised at what they do believe in naturally. So, that doesn't work either.

So when an atheist says that atheism is the default position, he is offering nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion upon which he wants to build an argument that atheism is somehow valid or superior or natural. The conclusion is not supported by the premise.

But, what if it is true that atheism is the natural position of the person? Now, we are not saying that is the case, but what if it were? Would it mean that there is no God? Of course not. Even if an atheist were to hold the position that atheism is the default position (which cannot be verified), what does that have to do with whether or not God exists? It is irrelevant to the issue.

So, when atheists like to say that atheism is the default position, I like to respond with a request for them to prove it. They can't. They need to stop offering unsubstantiated opinions as facts.

https://carm.org/atheism-default-position

Reap this righteous riff - mop mop

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Is atheism the default position?
by Matt Slick

Many atheists claim that atheism is the default position. In other words, they claim that when persons are born, they are naturally atheists and that it is only through indoctrination that they become theists. But, this claim is nothing more then an unsubstantiated opinion. How does an atheist know ...[text shortened]... s.

https://carm.org/atheism-default-position

Reap this righteous riff - mop mop

Wow. This is a new low for you, quoting that evil moron.

Can you really not see the massive glaring holes in his position? Do you really need them spelled out to you?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wow. This is a new low for you, quoting that evil moron.

Can you really not see the massive glaring holes in his position? Do you really need them spelled out to you?

Would you care to explain how you came upon the word 'evil' did you perhaps borrow it from theists? Quite evidently you are really good at threatening to point out holes.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I would point to the holes in your logic sir, but i'm having problems locating the logic.

Maybe it's because it's based upon your logic. You said "My 'atheism' is a lack of God in my life, nothing more, It didn't require a decision, unlike becoming a Christian." Hence my response.