Why I Am An Atheist

[yiostheoy]

From the piece...
"The worst reason for not believing in God (though the least obviously bad), is that there is no evidence for His existence."
This is the foundation for my disbelief: no evidence, as I assess things.
Guess I'm a bad atheist.
*shrug*
I can live with that.

Technically speaking, that would be more of an agnostic argument in defense of agnosticism than a truly atheist position.
Bertrand Russell explained the difference, reminding himself that only Philosophers actually know the difference.
Atheism is simply a belief system that believes that nothing Theological exists.
Philosophically speaking you cannot prove a negative without first exploring every square inch of the Universe -- and we humans do not possess the technology to do so. Ergo atheism is irrational.

About Tallis and his view of being an agnostic:

But shouldn’t one humbly admit uncertainty, and be an agnostic rather than an atheist? No; and here’s the reason why. A quick glance at the metaphysical claims associated with the 100 or so religions on offer at the present time shows that they are in profound and often bitter conflict. But unless you have been indoctrinated from birth into a particular religion you are forced to make a seemingly random choice in the Shopping Mall of Theological Ideas. If in the spirit of humility you seek what they have in common, very little of substance remains: the highest common factor between Christianity, Paganism, Hinduism, Jainism and all the other theisms is pretty small, and what little remains is incoherent.

To be a sincere agnostic you would have to be able to entertain the notion of a God who is infinite but has specific characteristics; unbounded, but distinct in some sense from His creation; who is a Being that has not been brought into being; who is omniscient, omnipotent and good and yet so constrained as to be unable or unwilling to create a world without evil; who is intelligent and yet has little in common with intelligent beings as we understand them; and so on. The ‘apophatic’ God, defined in terms of what God is not, of the Greek philosopher Xenophanes and some strands of Orthodox Christianity, is some acknowledgement of this unthinkability of the deity. But agnosticism requires one to keep in play the notion of a square circle. Not, I would think, worth the effort.

Note the qualifier 'sincere'. To be a sincere agnostic - is perhaps a bit different to someone who hasn't given it much thought and simply shrugs at such questions in an indifferent matter: I don't know and I don't care.
Henry is clearly sincere - having given this issue a great deal of thought.
Re atheism being irrational - if based on the need for evidence. The position of any atheist is not always about the evidence. Indeed, Tallis says this would be a 'bad' reason.

Lately there has in addition been created a third category of non-theist -- the "uninterested" category.

So now we have these 3 --

- Agnostic

- Atheist

- Uninterested.

[henry quirk]

"what if the Supreme Being Himself show(s) you He exists (in a way) congenial to His purposes and nature (and) you simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence as evidence"

In such a case, you have stalemate, and any effort on your or God's part is gonna fail, so leave the dishonest schmoe to his fate and go do sumthin' productive.

Now consider this: God reveals Him Self in a way 'congenial' to Him Self, and me, an honest man (I think) ain't seein' it...who's to blame?

God, for expecting too much of me?

Me, for not livin' up to His expectations?

Simply: if I'm too dumb to see God, then mebbe the burden is on Him to change up his tactics.

[henry quirk]

"Technically speaking, that would be more of an agnostic argument in defense of agnosticism than a truly atheist position"

Meh...at this point you could call my position 'watermelon' and I wouldn't fight you on it.

Atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever, indifferent, apatheist, watermelon...*shrug*

[henry quirk]

" I seem to be in agreement with you"

Another sensible human being...

[marjoram_blues]

" I seem to be in agreement with you"

Another sensible human being...

...who finds it easy to agree with a watermelon - or v.v.

[henry quirk]

I am seedless.

[yiostheoy]

"what if the Supreme Being Himself show(s) you He exists (in a way) congenial to His purposes and nature (and) you simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence as evidence"

In such a case, you have stalemate, and any effort on your or God's part is gonna fail, so leave the dishonest schmoe to his fate and go do sumthin' productive.

Now consider this: God reveals Him Self in a way 'congenial' to Him Self, and me, an honest man (I think) ain't seein' it...who's to blame?

God, for expecting too much of me?

Me, for not livin' up to His expectations?

Simply: if I'm too dumb to see God, then mebbe the burden is on Him to change up his tactics.

God(s) do/does not seem very interested to cater to us.

Apparently They do not need the riffraff.

[yiostheoy]

"Technically speaking, that would be more of an agnostic argument in defense of agnosticism than a truly atheist position"

Meh...at this point you could call my position 'watermelon' and I wouldn't fight you on it.

Atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever, indifferent, apatheist, watermelon...*shrug*

In Philosophy, proper definitions are critical.

These are normally required to be spelled out early in the thesis.

If you are not really a Philosopher then meh ... .

[marjoram_blues]

I am seedless.

I am speechless.

[henry quirk]

"God(s) do/does not seem very interested to cater to us."

And I'm happy to return the (non)favor.

#

Nope, not a philosopher...just a smart ape gettin' through the day.

#

"speechless"

HA!

[Skip]

I agree that that there can be an emotional component, sometimes it can get heavy. However, as you say, when and if anyone comes out publicly to identify as, and support the position of what it means to be an atheist - then usually it is through a process of objective reasoning.
I'm not sure that the stages are at the same time or order for everyone...

Of course, the transformative events and the stages of disengagement are entirely unique to each individual who has been subjected to religion early in life. Though they would have some elements in common, everyone's experience is shaped by environment, the type and intensity of religious indoctrination, the age at which that first moment of doubt occurred, the child's temperament, intelligence, access to information, etc. It would be interesting to see an honest survey of what people recall as their personal first alarm and subsequent milestones.
The thinking-through, or exposition, however, is likely to be far more similar, as it most commonly takes place in late adolescence and clever eighteen-year-olds are tediously samish the world over.

[Dalek Prime]

...Consider Dalek Prime for example. He wrote

Nick, I've already explained twice elsewhere why the universe can't possibly be conscious. Either refute my explanation, or shut up about it.

He hasn’t refuted anything intellectually since he doesn’t know what it is. He has refuted it in his mind emotionally...

Where is the emotion in the following argument, Nick?


'Let me explain what a universal consciousness would be like, should it have existed: Everything is delimited by the speed of light, no less thought. So, for arguments sake, we have the big bang, and the universe begins expanding. At maximum size, roughly 13 billion years later, light would have traversed it how many times? Once. Which would mean that the universe is the slowest, most stupid, dullest consciousness possible, only capable of communicating one thought across it's expanse in 13 billion years; it's lifetime. The average retard is a genius in comparison.'

Now, get off your high horse and refute it, or shut up.

[marjoram_blues]

I agree that that there can be an emotional component, sometimes it can get heavy. However, as you say, when and if anyone comes out publicly to identify as, and support the position of what it means to be an atheist - then usually it is through a process of objective reasoning.
I'm not sure that the stages are at the same time or order for everyone...

Of course, the transformative events and the stages of disengagement are entirely unique to each individual who has been subjected to religion early in life. Though they would have some elements in common, everyone's experience is shaped by environment, the type and intensity of religious indoctrination, the age at which that first moment of doubt occurred, the child's temperament, intelligence, access to information, etc. It would be interesting to see an honest survey of what people recall as their personal first alarm and subsequent milestones.
The thinking-through, or exposition, however, is likely to be far more similar, as it most commonly takes place in late adolescence and clever eighteen-year-olds are tediously samish the world over.

I agree it would be interesting ! Not sure my playback system is all that reliable.

[Immanuel Can]

But what then if you simply refused to acknowledge the evidence as evidence, so that nothing was sufficient any longer for you to be willing to believe He exists? Where would we go from there?

If you can suggest how to proceed, I would be happy to proceed.

How could evidence not be seen as evidence? Unless the evidence was something like the existence of a chimney proving the existence of Santa. Can you give an example of evidence which has not been acknowledged as evidence?

From an impartial view, it cannot be: you are correct to pose the question. But human beings are often partial, and sometimes we tend not to see what we are unprepared to look for.

Your example: Haven't you ever hidden something from someone by putting it in plain sight, but at a time or location in which they were not expecting to see it? There's nothing wrong with their physical eyes, but they cannot "see" what's right in front of them. Sometimes you even laugh at them and say, "It's right there!"

Sometimes seeing isn't about the absence of evidence, but about how one's brain is ready to address the evidence.

[sthitapragya]

But what then if you simply refused to acknowledge the evidence as evidence, so that nothing was sufficient any longer for you to be willing to believe He exists? Where would we go from there?

If you can suggest how to proceed, I would be happy to proceed.

How could evidence not be seen as evidence? Unless the evidence was something like the existence of a chimney proving the existence of Santa. Can you give an example of evidence which has not been acknowledged as evidence?

From an impartial view, it cannot be: you are correct to pose the question. But human beings are often partial, and sometimes we tend not to see what we are unprepared to look for.

Your example: Haven't you ever hidden something from someone by putting it in plain sight, but at a time or location in which they were not expecting to see it? There's nothing wrong with their physical eyes, but they cannot "see" what's right in front of them. Sometimes you even laugh at them and say, "It's right there!"

Sometimes seeing isn't about the absence of evidence, but about how one's brain is ready to address the evidence.

OK, but I still need an example.