Why I'm an atheist

[Lambowei]

Unfortunately, everything changes over time, once religion was the basis of many people's lives, and now with the progress of technology people's attitude changes.

If we are talking about religion - then any religion only partially leads to the same God. After all, God is one. Moreover, God is not the opposite of science and technology. God can be called the Universe, Energy, Love, or otherwise, these are all different sides of the same. God cannot be understood by the mind (it is not something physical or material). This is what lies beyond the understanding of man in this world. However, we can strive for God through Love or through kindness, etc.
After our death, freed from the physical body (and from our other bodies, such as the astral, mental, etc.), we are reunited with God and only then we can understand what it is. In this world it is impossible to understand, only partially.
When we live our life in harmony with ourselves and with the people around us, with the whole world, when we love, when we control our mind and use it only for the good, when we live in heart and soul - then we are in continuous conversation with God (or at least strive for Him).

Well that's just false because god doesn't exist. I'm more in harmony than you, and that's because I don't believe in bullshit.

[af_newbie]

Unfortunately, everything changes over time, once religion was the basis of many people's lives, and now with the progress of technology people's attitude changes.

If we are talking about religion - then any religion only partially leads to the same God. After all, God is one. Moreover, God is not the opposite of science and technology. God can be called the Universe, Energy, Love, or otherwise, these are all different sides of the same. God cannot be understood by the mind (it is not something physical or material). This is what lies beyond the understanding of man in this world. However, we can strive for God through Love or through kindness, etc.
After our death, freed from the physical body (and from our other bodies, such as the astral, mental, etc.), we are reunited with God and only then we can understand what it is. In this world it is impossible to understand, only partially.
When we live our life in harmony with ourselves and with the people around us, with the whole world, when we love, when we control our mind and use it only for the good, when we live in heart and soul - then we are in continuous conversation with God (or at least strive for Him).

Hmm, looks like you are ignorant and you convinced yourself that you are not.

If you think that anything unknown is God, you are religious, LOL.  Aka, a dishonest imbecile.

If you have conversations with God, you have lost your mind.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/03/ten-reasons-humans-created-religion

[BADecker]

When anyone thinks about atheism logically, he will see that it is based on simple belief, not knowledge. Anyone who says that he is an atheist from knowledge that there is no God is lying.

Nobody knows that God doesn't exist. Since the greater portion of a person's mind, his subconscious, is mostly hidden so that it is not understood by the conscious mind, nobody knows for a fact that God doesn't exist right in himself. And since he doesn't know this much, he doesn't know for a fact that God doesn't exist somewhere in the universe that he hasn't examined yet... or outside of the universe, for that matter.

The people who are closest to being real atheists are people who have never thought about the idea of God existing. If they haven't thought about such a thing as God, they don't realize that He might exist somewhere that they haven't examined, and so they simply go on with life, believing all the things that they believe in with God not included... at least not consciously.

When the question of the existence of God comes to a person, he has to decide if he is going to hide from himself the fact that he doesn't know, and instead choose the position that God doesn't exist. This means that the stronger the atheist, the more he is lying to himself and others about reality... that God might easily exist somewhere, even thogh he doesn't know where.

This means that the strong atheist is someone who is fighting reality to simply be an atheist.

[Lambowei]

Nobody knows that God doesn't exist.

Nobody knows if god exists.

Nobody knows if unicorns exist, though nevertheless people normally think they're just an invention of humans and that thus they don't exist. It's normal to consider that things don't exist when there's no scientific evidence that they do, and as that's the case for both god and unicorns I consider neither exist. It's not a belief, it's just standard procedure: by default I consider things not to exist, when there's some scientific evidence then I start to consider whether they do.

 

[BADecker]

Nobody knows that God doesn't exist.

Nobody knows if god exists.

Nobody knows if unicorns exist, though nevertheless people normally think they're just an invention of humans and that thus they don't exist. It's normal to consider that things don't exist when there's no scientific evidence that they do, and as that's the case for both god and unicorns I consider neither exist. It's not a belief, it's just standard procedure: by default I consider things not to exist, when there's some scientific evidence then I start to consider whether they do.

 

Many scientists understand that God exists through the evidence of machine universe. All you are doing is exactly the thing every other religious person does... believe his religion.

All scientists know that they haven't proven that God doesn't exist. So, He might exist somewhere somehow, right?

A strong atheist believer might say that it is simply standard normal to know that God doesn't exist. And he is right for strong atheists. Others know that God DOES exist, from the evidence of machine universe and the proof when combining the physics of the universe with the question, "Where does it come from?"

[Lambowei]

Many scientists understand that God exists through the evidence of machine universe. All you are doing is exactly the thing every other religious person does... believe his religion.

All scientists know that they haven't proven that God doesn't exist. So, He might exist somewhere somehow, right?

In your view, you present atheists as religious people, and religious people as scientists. It's comical how stupid those arguments are. Anyway, even if you repeat it a million times, you're still lying to yourself: there's no scientific evidence of any god (or unicorns), you're just using non-sequitur fallacies.

[BADecker]

Many scientists understand that God exists through the evidence of machine universe. All you are doing is exactly the thing every other religious person does... believe his religion.

All scientists know that they haven't proven that God doesn't exist. So, He might exist somewhere somehow, right?

In your view, you present atheists as religious people, and religious people as scientists. It's comical how stupid those arguments are. Anyway, even if you repeat it a million times, you're still lying to yourself: there's no scientific evidence of any god (or unicorns), you're just using non-sequitur fallacies.

You actually sound like you are ignorant about the fact that there are thousands of God-religious scientists, just like there are thousands of atheism-religious scientists. Keep it up... talking like that. You are only making a solid point out of the fact that atheism is a religion.

[Lambowei]

You actually sound like you are ignorant about the fact that there are thousands of God-religious scientists, just like there are thousands of atheism-religious scientists. Keep it up... talking like that. You are only making a solid point out of the fact that atheism is a religion.

Again, your lack of ability for understanding things is quite sad. Of course there are religious scientists. Believing in god(s) is not at odds with doing science, because beliefs and scientific knowledge are just completely different subjects (that you try to mix). As long as one recognizes that his beliefs are just that, beliefs, you can still also do science, which is not based on belief but on the scientific method of acquiring knowledge. And just to make it clear for you as you seem to have trouble understanding things: all religions are based on beliefs, not on the scientific method.

You see, the problem for you is that you're trying to rationalize your religious beliefs. But you can't rationalize them, there's no logic in beliefs. So instead you start to use fake logic, fallacies, non-sequitur arguments to get to your desired end. That's not how science works, science is about the method of discovering truth, whatever it may be, not trying to bend logic to get to your desired destination/belief.

[BADecker]

You actually sound like you are ignorant about the fact that there are thousands of God-religious scientists, just like there are thousands of atheism-religious scientists. Keep it up... talking like that. You are only making a solid point out of the fact that atheism is a religion.

Again, your lack of ability for understanding things is quite sad. Of course there are religious scientists. Believing in god(s) is not at odds with doing science, because beliefs and scientific knowledge are just completely different subjects (that you try to mix). As long as one recognizes that his beliefs are just that, beliefs, you can still also do science, which is not based on belief but on the scientific method of acquiring knowledge. And just to make it clear for you as you seem to have trouble understanding things: all religions are based on beliefs, not on the scientific method.

You see, the problem for you is that you're trying to rationalize your religious beliefs. But you can't rationalize them, there's no logic in beliefs. So instead you start to use fake logic, fallacies, non-sequitur arguments to get to your desired end. That's not how science works, science is about the method of discovering truth, whatever it may be, not trying to bend logic to get to your desired destination/belief.

But it is the scientific method that promotes beliefs in scientists. For example, the scientific method suggests that a proper scientific theory backed by scientific consensus, is essentially fact. Yet all the scientists know that the moment some better info about the theory is found, the theory changes. Often that change completely destroys the scientific theory, or else completely changes it.

The point? Scientists might believe the theory, or they might not. It is their religion, because the theory is not known to be fact, even though the scientific method accepts that it is fact until new info is found. In other words, at least a good portion of science is religion, based on belief in science theory which really is not fact, even though scientists love the consensus that it is fact until proven different to not be fact. Science has embedded religion into science in this.

The fact that nature and the universe is a machine, is a fact that is not scientific theory. It is fact. Machines have makers. The only Maker "big" enough to make machine universe is God.

One of the weakest religions around is atheism. Why? Because the atheist is not a thinker. If he were a thinker, he would know that there are countless numbers of places in the universe where God might exist, but that he the atheist hasn't checked yet. Upon realizing this, he doesn't necessarily stop being a believer in atheism. Rather, he strengthens his stubbornness against logic... unless he stops being an atheist, that is.

[Lambowei]

But it is the scientific method that promotes beliefs in scientists.

No, that's your belief, and it's bullshit.

For example, the scientific method suggests that a proper scientific theory backed by scientific consensus, is essentially fact.

No it doesn't, scientific theories are not backed by consensus but but experiments. How ignorant can you be? Also scientific theories are not considered facts, just good models of reality based on experiments. Experiments can limit or expand the validity of the model, but the model is just a model and it's not considered "fact".

Yet all the scientists know that the moment some better info about the theory is found, the theory changes. Often that change completely destroys the scientific theory, or else completely changes it.

You have no idea of what "scientific theory" means. I suggest you read and try to understand Wikipedia before you say something stupid.

The point? Scientists might believe the theory, or they might not.

The point is, you're full of bullshit arguments and fallacies and you wouldn't be able to make a sound argument or be convinced by one even by luck because as a fanatic you prefer to believe you've found knowledge and you dismiss any real argument. Your bs belongs to the XV century, not the XXI.

 

[BADecker]

But it is the scientific method that promotes beliefs in scientists.

No, that's your belief, and it's bullshit.

But you seem to contradict this and yourself in your next statement.

For example, the scientific method suggests that a proper scientific theory backed by scientific consensus, is essentially fact.

No it doesn't, scientific theories are not backed by consensus but but experiments. How ignorant can you be? Also scientific theories are not considered facts, just good models of reality based on experiments. Experiments can limit or expand the validity of the model, but the model is just a model and it's not considered "fact".

If scientific theories are backed by experiments that show facts, why are the theories not factual? If the scientific theories are simply good models of something, but they are believed by some or many to be factual and true because the experiments are factual and true, how can this whole thing not be something religious?

Having faith that the experiments were done correctly, and that the theory model is accurate, is still a faith thing. But it is the believing in it that makes it like a religion, especially since it is not known to be fact, but is believed in anyway. If scientists don't consider it part of a religion when they believe in it, what do they call it?... since they admit that they believe it and trust that it is true when they know that it might not be?

When we look at the universe, what we are seeing is the evidence of the operation of the universe as being machinery. Our evidence of where machinery comes from is from a builder or maker. So, the universe has a Maker, right? If the universe doesn't have a Maker, why not, since our only evidence of machines and machinery is that machines and machinery have makers?

I mean, if experiments using the levers and leverages of the universe produce machines, why would the universe which operates using these same levers and leverages not be a machine of machines? Things that are not known to be true, but rather are known to only be good models, are called scientific theories (at least much of the time). Scientists trust the experimentation/theory process. So, how can there be any doubt that machine builders using machinery of the universe to build their machines, point to the evidence or fact that the machinery of the universe must have been built?

You contradict your whole theoretical process by accepting the fact of machine makers, but not accepting that there is or might be a Maker of the universe machine.

Yet all the scientists know that the moment some better info about the theory is found, the theory changes. Often that change completely destroys the scientific theory, or else completely changes it.

You have no idea of what "scientific theory" means. I suggest you read and try to understand Wikipedia before you say something stupid.

The point? Scientists might believe the theory, or they might not.

The point is, you're full of bullshit arguments and fallacies and you wouldn't be able to make a sound argument or be convinced by one even by luck because as a fanatic you prefer to believe you've found knowledge and you dismiss any real argument. Your bs belongs to the XV century, not the XXI.

 

I'm beginning to understand that no matter what science theory is or might be, and no matter how logical it is to believe that God might exist, you simply don't WANT to believe that God exists, or even in the possibility of the existence of God. This makes atheism more of a religion than ever... at least in your case and for you. Not only that, but it makes a good big chunk of science a religion for you... simply because you won't accept the scientific logic of the possibility that God exists.

[Lambowei]

But you seem to contradict this and yourself in your next statement.

No, I don't, you just seem unable to understand me.

If scientific theories are backed by experiments that show facts, why are the theories not factual? If the scientific theories are simply good models of something, but they are believed by some or many to be factual and true because the experiments are factual and true, how can this whole thing not be something religious?

Because, as the good old Richard Feynmann said: “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.”

There's no absolute statement in science, you have varying degrees of certainty instead. You have models of reality, and experiments that try to limit the validity of those models. As there's no absolute certain statement, you cannot say something is "factual", when you speak in proper scientific terms.

Having faith that the experiments were done correctly, and that the theory model is accurate, is still a faith thing.

There's no faith involved, if you have any doubt you go and re-do the experiment. Most of current physics theories can be checked in a university laboratory, and they actually are checked in the laboratories when you study at uni. I've done it, I know that the current scientific theories are good because I've actually tested them.

When we look at the universe, what we are seeing is the evidence of the operation of the universe as being machinery. Our evidence of where machinery comes from is from a builder or maker. So, the universe has a Maker, right? If the universe doesn't have a Maker, why not, since our only evidence of machines and machinery is that machines and machinery have makers?

This paragraph is totally nonsensical and full of non-sequitur arguments. I'm sorry, but you've FAILED at logic. Just go and recognise yours is a belief. There's nothing wrong with having a religion/belief like you do, just don't try to pass it as science, that's lying. Stop lying to yourself, stop lying to others.

I'm beginning to understand that no matter what science theory is or might be, and no matter how logical it is to believe that God might exist, you simply don't WANT to believe that God exists, or even in the possibility of the existence of God. This makes atheism more of a religion than ever... at least in your case and for you. Not only that, but it makes a good big chunk of science a religion for you... simply because you won't accept the scientific logic of the possibility that God exists.

I don't want to believe, and I don't believe in anything. I don't believe in science (no need, it's not based on beliefs), I don't believe in god. It's good that you're somewhat recognizing in this paragraph that your belief in god is just that: a belief.

simply because you won't accept the scientific logic of the possibility that God exists.

You say the word "scientifically speaking" but you don't know what it means. I'll tell you what science can tell you about god: nothing. Science only concerns itself about statements that are falsifiable (see, Karl Popper). At the moment there's no possible observation/scientific experiment that can check whether god exists or not, thus science cannot tell you anything at all about the subject (either way).

Thus, the positions on god for both religious people and atheists are just not scientific positions. However that doesn't necessarily mean that atheism is about beliefs: my atheism is closer to agnosticism than to "normal" atheism. In all regards you'll be closer to understand my position if you believe me to be agnostic, as I'm a kind of atheist that is also agnostic (because they're actually compatible). I don't disregard the possibility that god (or unicorns) exist, I just observe that there's no falsifiable argument for its existence, and thus I assume, for my day to day, that god doesn't exist, but it's a working assumption rather than a belief. I just assume that nothing exists in principle (like superman, unicorns or god), until there's a hint of a falsifiable statement.

I'm sorry if all this is very difficult for you to understand, but reality is way more complex, and simple, and beautiful than what religious fanatics expect.

 

[josephsonand]

Well that's just false because god doesn't exist. I'm more in harmony than you, and that's because I don't believe in bullshit.

The categorical denial of God (or whatever) is also faith (only in the opposite sense).
I'm not trying to offend anyone, it's your choice how you live.
We all strive for the truth - and this is the most important thing. And I don’t think that anyone will argue that love and kindness are bad and that this does not exist. I don't try to believe in love, I just love the people around me, love this world. This is communication with God. Love, kindness and other good things that we know are all in the aggregate I call God. Therefore, I see no reason to argue. We all strive for this (depending on the measure of our understanding of the world).

Hmm, looks like you are ignorant and you convinced yourself that you are not.

If you think that anything unknown is God, you are religious, LOL.  Aka, a dishonest imbecile.

If you have conversations with God, you have lost your mind.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/03/ten-reasons-humans-created-religion

Most importantly, we all strive for goodness and humanity. All these terms are God for me. And I don't see any disagreement between us.
It is not so important how you perceive it. Unfortunately, most people don't understand what religion is (even being in any religion). For example, I never belonged to any religion. But as far as I understand, the root of most religions and spiritual teachings is Love (and other terms). Therefore, I think that we all should not draw premature conclusions. Because initially the religions tried to tell people about the spiritual path (about good, about humanity, about compassion, etc.). If you understand what all religions and spiritual teachings are based on, then you can understand that all of this unites us all (and it doesn’t matter what you believe or don't believe).

[BADecker]

But you seem to contradict this and yourself in your next statement.

No, I don't, you just seem unable to understand me.

If scientific theories are backed by experiments that show facts, why are the theories not factual? If the scientific theories are simply good models of something, but they are believed by some or many to be factual and true because the experiments are factual and true, how can this whole thing not be something religious?

Because, as the good old Richard Feynmann said: “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.”

There's no absolute statement in science, you have varying degrees of certainty instead. You have models of reality, and experiments that try to limit the validity of those models. As there's no absolute certain statement, you cannot say something is "factual", when you speak in proper scientific terms.

Having faith that the experiments were done correctly, and that the theory model is accurate, is still a faith thing.

There's no faith involved, if you have any doubt you go and re-do the experiment. Most of current physics theories can be checked in a university laboratory, and they actually are checked in the laboratories when you study at uni. I've done it, I know that the current scientific theories are good because I've actually tested them.

When we look at the universe, what we are seeing is the evidence of the operation of the universe as being machinery. Our evidence of where machinery comes from is from a builder or maker. So, the universe has a Maker, right? If the universe doesn't have a Maker, why not, since our only evidence of machines and machinery is that machines and machinery have makers?

This paragraph is totally nonsensical and full of non-sequitur arguments. I'm sorry, but you've FAILED at logic. Just go and recognise yours is a belief. There's nothing wrong with having a religion/belief like you do, just don't try to pass it as science, that's lying. Stop lying to yourself, stop lying to others.

I'm beginning to understand that no matter what science theory is or might be, and no matter how logical it is to believe that God might exist, you simply don't WANT to believe that God exists, or even in the possibility of the existence of God. This makes atheism more of a religion than ever... at least in your case and for you. Not only that, but it makes a good big chunk of science a religion for you... simply because you won't accept the scientific logic of the possibility that God exists.

I don't want to believe, and I don't believe in anything. I don't believe in science (no need, it's not based on beliefs), I don't believe in god. It's good that you're somewhat recognizing in this paragraph that your belief in god is just that: a belief.

simply because you won't accept the scientific logic of the possibility that God exists.

You say the word "scientifically speaking" but you don't know what it means. I'll tell you what science can tell you about god: nothing. Science only concerns itself about statements that are falsifiable (see, Karl Popper). At the moment there's no possible observation/scientific experiment that can check whether god exists or not, thus science cannot tell you anything at all about the subject (either way).

Thus, the positions on god for both religious people and atheists are just not scientific positions. However that doesn't necessarily mean that atheism is about beliefs: my atheism is closer to agnosticism than to "normal" atheism. In all regards you'll be closer to understand my position if you believe me to be agnostic, as I'm a kind of atheist that is also agnostic (because they're actually compatible). I don't disregard the possibility that god (or unicorns) exist, I just observe that there's no falsifiable argument for its existence, and thus I assume, for my day to day, that god doesn't exist, but it's a working assumption rather than a belief. I just assume that nothing exists in principle (like superman, unicorns or god), until there's a hint of a falsifiable statement.

I'm sorry if all this is very difficult for you to understand, but reality is way more complex, and simple, and beautiful than what religious fanatics expect.

 

Basically you are trying to do three things:

1. That the only known fact in a scientific theory is the fact that it is a scientific theory. In your thinking, it is this one fact alone that takes scientific theories out of the category of religion. The point that scientific theories when believed in as factual doesn't make them a religion, is about as silly as anyone can get.

2. That scientific theories that are believed in when it is not known that they are factual, are not some form of religious faith... even though there is belief rather than factual knowledge;

3. That when you are talking about the existence of God, suddenly scientific facts and theory don't apply. You intentionally ignore that God made science... the things that are measured scientifically.

As long as you are unwilling to even accept the possibility of the existence of God, when it is the whole principle of the machine universe that points to God, you have an illogical religion going for yourself.

The only way you can simply ignore science findings when they apply to God is to do it. That's all. Standard unbeliever, and an unfair-to-science one at that.

[actmyname]

Life has no meaning without an afterlife

An afterlife has no meaning without life.

If the course of this eternal afterlife is determined by the events within one's life, then surely one's life is more important than the afterlife.

[BADecker]

Life has no meaning without an afterlife

An afterlife has no meaning without life.

If the course of this eternal afterlife is determined by the events within one's life, then surely one's life is more important than the afterlife.

No afterlife without the recognition that God exists... and then faith in Him and His salvation.

[andulolika]

I believe all religion should be erradicated.

[BADecker]

I believe all religion should be erradicated.

No, please no. Don't do that. We'd have to get rid of science theory. Or is such your goal?

[andulolika]

I believe all religion should be erradicated.

No, please no. Don't do that. We'd have to get rid of science theory. Or is such your goal?

I mainly mean christianity and islam, i consider the rest mostly irrelevant.
These two are strong sects that endured for too long.
Science is the way to go .

Religion is religion and i'd guess it tends to work togheter, most specialy in these times where atheism isn't a offence that can get you executed, atleast perhaps excluding islam.

[actmyname]

No afterlife without the recognition that God exists... and then faith in Him and His salvation.

Just a curious question to you: which God are you referring to? Statistically, I'm assuming the Abrahamic variant but since there are countless paths and sects thereof it's difficult to get a grasp on the exact "God" people refer to.