Does anything attract you to Atheism?

[Kurieuo]

I'm not an atheist because I find atheism attractive. I'm an atheist because I don't believe the people who claim that gods exist, and I haven't seen any other evidence. Atheism actually comes with a lot of downsides. Religion offers answers and responses to loss, death, tragedy, inequality, and injustice. Atheism takes all of that away and offers nothing in return. That doesn't matter because I'm not sitting here doing a cost-benefit analysis. From my point of view atheism is the only option because gods don't exist and religion is founded on an empty throne.

You know, I like your honesty Ed here.
Many Atheists still try to argue for meaning and the like to such.
I think it is crucially important to understand the truth in what you wrote, within the debate.

Sadly, I think it impossible for anyone to truly embrace the world that Atheism would logically leaves us with.
That is no meaning and nothing in return except to just perhaps shake our fists at the absurdity of life while we just continue. And yet, we cry unfair if treated unfair. We feel anger at injustice. We do feel a person's life matters, even our own. Not just now, but in some lasting way. Religion or no religion, this is just what we feeling and intuitively believe.

One of the biggest arguments, I see for God, isn't one that proves with absolutely certainty God's existence.
BUT, rather an argument from coherency. Given all I see as real and intuitively accept to be true, which beliefs seems more coherent: God or no God.

What are all those beliefs I just accept and believe to be true. As I live life, I just naturally affirm much stuff you mentioned over and over again without even thinking. Others do too, I'm damn sure you do too particularly with injustices as they surround Christian bigots and churches. All those things you mentioned in the negative, I feel strongly there is meaning in loss and death, true meaning in life and things that happen to us, meaning in tragedy, that people really do matter and can make a lasting impact, also feeling empathy for those who have been wrongly hurt, treated unjustly and the like.

Now what makes all that coherent, and as such me true to myself? I believe you said it: Religion, by which you really mean God which is more the answer I'd accept. That is, I don't see religion as anything more than man's attempt at reaching up; I don't need any person or man-made religion telling me God exists and here He is, do this and that, say your prayers like this, believe this and that, ask no questions just do, do, do. Such repulses me. It even repulsed Christ if you read the Gospels. BUT, to reject God's existence, I may as well be rejecting myself since such would make me inconsistent with all these concepts I find meaningful -- concepts of fairness, equality, justice, love, morality and the like.

I agree with Ed when he said:
Religion offers answers and responses to loss, death, tragedy, inequality, and injustice. Atheism takes all of that away and offers nothing in return.
But it needs to be pointed out, that atheists do not depend upon atheism for these things; atheism is not a substitute for religion. IOW we have ways of dealing with these things, they just don’t involve God.

Ken

Ken, of course everyone deals with those things, well except those who just opt out of life.

And "religion" isn't even a substitute for providing real meaning.
Religions are about as fickle in meaning as the person shaking their fist at life's absurdity while they march on.
As Ed said, religion provides answers and responses to loss, death, tragedy, inequality, and injustice.
He concluded very clearly that such are simply placebo, "founded upon an empty throne".
In other words, better to face up to reality than live a lie.

Ed was also very straight-up and clear: "Atheism takes all of that away."
Atheism provides no answers, no responses, but just takes away such things.
Therefore, in Atheism one is truly stoic and resilient. Striving on, knowing full well there is no real point.
"Meaningless, everything is meaningless," says the wise man.
So eat, drink and be happy in your allotted life.
That is one way of dealing with it.

Nonetheless, I'm not so much interested in how to deal with the absurdity of life.
BUT, as far as myself is concerned, I don't want to be a walking contradiction. That is, given within my very nature I embrace many such things as meaningful. Indeed such is why I feel compassion, love and empathy for others. No man or religion needs to tell me that people have value and meaning. I intuit such. It is self evident to me such is true. However, since Atheism takes this away and replaces it with nothing, then I cannot embrace Atheism. So to remain consistent with my myself, the only option is to admit God exists rather than keep resisting and fighting such.

[IceMobster]

I'm not an atheist because I find atheism attractive. I'm an atheist because I don't believe the people who claim that gods exist, and I haven't seen any other evidence. Atheism actually comes with a lot of downsides. Religion offers answers and responses to loss, death, tragedy, inequality, and injustice. Atheism takes all of that away and offers nothing in return. That doesn't matter because I'm not sitting here doing a cost-benefit analysis. From my point of view atheism is the only option because gods don't exist and religion is founded on an empty throne.

How do you explain possessed people? Are each and every single one of them just a case for a psychologist?

Nothing about atheism attracts me. I think atheists are some of the most intellectually dishonest people there are.I mean they say we who believe in God have not provided enough evidence to convince them our God is real,yet they accept atheism with absolutely no evidence at all it is true and they even brag about them not needing evidence. It is a double standard that they overlook,they set the bar for evidence so high when it comes to God yet give atheism a pass when it comes to evidence. Even false religions have more evidence than atheism does.

Also from what I hear from atheist scientists who alot of atheists look up to? It requires alot more faith to believe the atheist scientist than to believe everything in the bible. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." is so much easier to believe than anything I've heard them come up with.Atheists willingly take the long way around to try to discover the truth,while acting like they don't.

As a caring Atheist, I am going to inform you that there is an argument against atheism that is irrefutable.
Atheism is the rejection of the man made claim that God exist.

You can reduce Atheism to dust, reduce it to absurdity by just supplying evidence that supports the claim that man makes about the existence of God.

Ken

Heck, why not wipe out evolution, too? All that is needed is one good solid contrary fact.

No disproof has ever been offered yet. Not one sad weary little fact.

Excuses, hoaxes, lies, strawmen, misrepresentation, distortions, those and more are trotted out
in weary procession, but never a fact is to be seen.

Or try this: tell the creationists to put up or shut up. No falsehoods, just s good fact or two.
If they agree, that will shut them up permanently.

Could you explain it to me where are the corpses of all of those "in-between" animals. Correct me if I am wrong, but there should be a corpse of a giraffe whose neck is not as long as today's giraffes and not short, as the presumable animal the today's giraffe evolved from, right? Where is that evolutionary step? Shouldn't it be evident in corpses, as well? No transitional phase between animals has ever been found.

Considering everything is made from coincidence, why do you trust your reason? Why do you trust your consciousness?

How do you explain coincidence that produces symmetrical, connected and balanced form?

Not to mention that you would say the movie "Jurrasic Park" was made by electrons flying through the air to your TV set, which then takes those electrons and disperses them into the form of light on the screen, sound vibrations through the speakers, etc. Theist would say the movie was made by its director, Stephen Spielberg. Atheism claims you don't even need to invoke Spielberg, that the flying electrons and light waves and sound vibrations are enough of an explanation if you give them enough time. In fact, you mock people who think otherwise:

To be a creationist (yec /gap) has stern requirements. One has to be one or all three of
ignorant, mentally disturbed, or intellectually dishonest.

[Kenny]

As Ed said, religion provides answers and responses to loss, death, tragedy, inequality, and injustice.
He concluded very clearly that such are simply placebo, "founded upon an empty throne".
In other words, better to face up to reality than live a lie.

Ed was also very straight-up and clear: "Atheism takes all of that away."
Atheism provides no answers, no responses, but just takes away such things.

My point is; Atheism only takes these things away if the answers are anchored in Theism. If you respond to inequality, tragedy, injustice and all the other things he mentioned via secular means; ( by getting involved with community, family, voting, etc.) atheism does nothing to take away from that.

Ken

[edwardmurphy]

But it needs to be pointed out, that atheists do not depend upon atheism for these things; atheism is not a substitute for religion. IOW we have ways of dealing with these things, they just don’t involve God.

This is true, and it's an important point. Atheism is just one, little idea. It's not a philosophy and it's certainly not a dogma.

Do you have proof to back your assertion that God(s) don't exist?

That's a dead end, Rick. I don't need to prove a thing. All I need to do is not be convinced, which I'm not. I don't expect you to agree with any of that, but that's not a problem for me. The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the original claimant, and that's not me.

Also, I think someone asked me what would convince me that god existed. The best answer I can come up with is that if god existed he'd have no trouble convincing me of that fact, but he's the only one who could.

[Kurieuo]

As Ed said, religion provides answers and responses to loss, death, tragedy, inequality, and injustice.
He concluded very clearly that such are simply placebo, "founded upon an empty throne".
In other words, better to face up to reality than live a lie.

Ed was also very straight-up and clear: "Atheism takes all of that away."
Atheism provides no answers, no responses, but just takes away such things.

My point is; Atheism only takes these things away if the answers are anchored in Theism. If you respond to inequality, tragedy, injustice and all the other things he mentioned via secular means; ( by getting involved with community, family, voting, etc.) atheism does nothing to take away from that.

Ken

Well then, it seems you have things rigged.
Either it takes away such things, or it doesn't.
It doesn't just take away for some, and not itself.
That's just like saying, "Everyone is wrong, oh... except for me!"
Ok then, more power to you on your own empty throne.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
Do you have proof to back your assertion that God(s) don't exist?

Edwardmurohy wrote:
That's a dead end, Rick. I don't need to prove a thing. All I need to do is not be convinced, which I'm not. I don't expect you to agree with any of that, but that's not a problem for me. The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the original claimant, and that's not me.

Also, I think someone asked me what would convince me that god existed. The best answer I can come up with is that if god existed he'd have no trouble convincing me of that fact, but he's the only one who could.

That's not how honest conversation works, Ed. You make an assertion, the least you can do is back your assertion with proof.


That's the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to when I mentioned that atheists change the meaning of atheism, so they wouldn't have to back their belief that God doesn't exist. Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim. But hey, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. What is asserted without reason may be denied without reason.

[edwardmurphy]

As Ed said, religion provides answers and responses to loss, death, tragedy, inequality, and injustice.
He concluded very clearly that such are simply placebo, "founded upon an empty throne".
In other words, better to face up to reality than live a lie.

Ed was also very straight-up and clear: "Atheism takes all of that away."
Atheism provides no answers, no responses, but just takes away such things.

True, but I didn't mean that as a criticism. It's just a fact. And as you mentioned, I think that what's taken away was never actually there to begin with. Still, the placebo effect is powerful and losing it is a real loss even if the loss isn't real.

Words are fun.

My point is; Atheism only takes these things away if the answers are anchored in Theism. If you respond to inequality, tragedy, injustice and all the other things he mentioned via secular means; ( by getting involved with community, family, voting, etc.) atheism does nothing to take away from that.

Ken

Yeah, I suppose that's true. If you were never a theist then you never had any placebos to lose so atheism doesn't take them away. The part about responding to inequality, tragedy and injustice by secular means strikes me as a bit naive, though. The world can be a pretty dark place and the bad guys tend to win big and get away clean. If you're religious you can leave it in god's hands to square things at the pearly gates or whatever. I think that's a fantasy, but for a true believer it might as well be true. If death is nothing more than non-existence, which I suspect is the case, then the believer won't go to heaven but he'll never know he didn't so he might as well have, y'know?

[edwardmurphy]

That's not how honest conversation works, Ed. You make an assertion, the least you can do is back your assertion with proof. That's the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to when I mentioned that atheists change the meaning of atheism, so they wouldn't have to back their belief that God doesn't exist.

All I see here is word games. You know perfectly well that it's not possible to prove a negative. You also know that your religion describes your god in terms that make it impossible to investigate him using scientific inquiry. That takes us to metaphysics, which is just more words, and faith, which is just suspension of disbelief. I'm not going to accept the most extraordinary claim in history if all you have to back it up is words.

Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim.

Liar.

[Kurieuo]

What is it about fairy tales that attract many people I wonder. Could our desire and natural inclinations for a happy ending, to see purpose and meaning in our adventure throughout life mixed with friendships, love, villains and for things to be made right and squared, actually point to one "myth" behind such which is actually true and not just a fairy tale?

Here's an article I found interesting: The God of Men—and of Elves: Tolkien, Lewis, and Christian Mythology

[Kenny]

Yeah, I suppose that's true. If you were never a theist then you never had any placebos to lose so atheism doesn't take them away.

Or if you are no longer religious, you learn to use secular means to deal with such problems rather than asking God to fix it.

The part about responding to inequality, tragedy and injustice by secular means strikes me as a bit naive, though. The world can be a pretty dark place and the bad guys tend to win big and get away clean.

U.S. Prisons are full of bad guys who thought they could win big and get away clean. God didn’t put them there; they were put there via secular means.

If you're religious you can leave it in god's hands to square things at the pearly gates or whatever.

I don’t know of any religious people who are just willing to leave it in God’s hands as a means of responding to inequality, tragedy, or injustice; they are as quick to enact secular/legal means as you, I, or anyone else. Yeah they might say God can deal with them after they’re dead, but while they are alive, they want secular justice just like anyone else.


Ken

[Kurieuo]

I don’t know of any religious people who are just willing to leave it in God’s hands as a means of responding to inequality, tragedy, or injustice; they are as quick to enact secular/legal means as you, I, or anyone else. Yeah they might say God can deal with them after they’re dead, but while they are alive, they want secular justice just like anyone else.

If Ed is correct, then as an Atheist, you can't talk seriously of the things underlined if Atheism takes such away.

What you might call such, well another sees as their fair right, an opportunity and owed to them.

And "secular justice"? What on earth do you mean.

[Audie]

Here Audie, fify:

Heck, why not wipe out evolution God too? All that is needed is one good solid contrary fact.

No disproof has ever been offered yet. Not one sad weary little fact.

Excuses, hoaxes, lies, strawmen, misrepresentation, distortions, those and more are trotted out
in weary procession, but never a fact is to be seen.

Or try this: tell the creationists atheists to put up or shut up. No falsehoods, just s a good fact or two.
If they agree, that will shut them up permanently.

If you have something to say, try saying it

[Kenny]

I don’t know of any religious people who are just willing to leave it in God’s hands as a means of responding to inequality, tragedy, or injustice; they are as quick to enact secular/legal means as you, I, or anyone else. Yeah they might say God can deal with them after they’re dead, but while they are alive, they want secular justice just like anyone else.

If Ed is correct, then as an Atheist, you can't talk seriously of the things underlined if Atheism takes such away.

That's why I pointed out my disagreement.

What you might call such, well another sees as their fair right, an opportunity and owed to them.

And "secular justice"? What on earth do you mean.

Secular justice is the Law. My point was when religious people feel they are treated unfairly or an injustice or inequality is done towards them, they are as quick to go to the police, get a lawyer, vote or protest to change the laws of the land as anybody else. Remember the civil rights movement of the 60's? Those were religious people; they didn't just let God handle "Jim Crow" they protested, fought, via secular means to get those laws changed.

Ken

[Kenny]

As Ed said, religion provides answers and responses to loss, death, tragedy, inequality, and injustice.
He concluded very clearly that such are simply placebo, "founded upon an empty throne".
In other words, better to face up to reality than live a lie.

Ed was also very straight-up and clear: "Atheism takes all of that away."
Atheism provides no answers, no responses, but just takes away such things.

My point is; Atheism only takes these things away if the answers are anchored in Theism. If you respond to inequality, tragedy, injustice and all the other things he mentioned via secular means; ( by getting involved with community, family, voting, etc.) atheism does nothing to take away from that.

Ken

Well then, it seems you have things rigged.
Either it takes away such things, or it doesn't.
It doesn't just take away for some, and not itself.
That's just like saying, "Everyone is wrong, oh... except for me!"
Ok then, more power to you on your own empty throne.

You lost me bro; I have no idea how you've reached those conclusions based upon what I said.

Ken

[Audie]

Could you explain it to me where are the corpses of all of those "in-between" animals. Correct me if I am wrong, but there should be a corpse of a giraffe whose neck is not as long as today's giraffes and not short, as the presumable animal the today's giraffe evolved from, right? Where is that evolutionary step? Shouldn't it be evident in corpses, as well? No transitional phase between animals has ever been found.

Considering everything is made from coincidence, why do you trust your reason? Why do you trust your consciousness?

How do you explain coincidence that produces symmetrical, connected and balanced form?

To be a creationist (yec /gap) has stern requirements. One has to be one or all three of
ignorant, mentally disturbed, or intellectually dishonest.

As elsewhere noted, to be a creationist requires ignorance or dishonesty.

The parts on bold will do for the ignorance. Do you even know why?

Also, note, I spoke of disproof of a theory, which you have not offered.

Instead,you went for how a theory must provide every single last detail of everything that happened for the last few hundred million years.

By that, the gaps in knowledge of WW2 should call its historical reality into sharp question.

There are also a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in the WW2 history. Does that not make it far more problematic than evolution, as ToE is without contradictions or inconsistencies?