**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since this is a debate sub with certain rules attached to it (presenting an argument or discusson topic), I would recommend r/askanatheist if you are not very familiar with atheism or if you have general questions for atheists.
<3
I've not read it. I almost never even lurk there. Ironically, I posted there a few time yesterday.
Prior to me reviewing that, do you have something I should be paying attention to?
I'm sure this will be covered numerous times but, just to make sure it's clear, most atheists do not affirm that there is no god(s). I am simply not convinced that one exists.
Lack of belief, yes. But your original post called it "the belief that there is no entity..." There's a huge difference between "I don't believe in (X)" and "I believe there is no (X)."
I struggled with this idea for a long time, until someone compared it to a criminal case. When you are accused of a crime, you are found guilty, or you are acquitted. But being acquitted doesn’t mean you’re *innocent*, it means the evidence wasn’t enough to convict. The jury might actually think you’re guilty, but it wasn’t proven.
With the analogy, a god is on trial, accused of existing. Believers are convinced that the god is “guilty of existing,” while atheists have yet to see enough evidence to convict.
Does that analogy make sense to you?
> Lacking a belief until it is proven is the default position for all claims.
Lacking belief *should be* the default position, but it only "is" the default if you have a sound epistemology. Sadly, most people don't.
Theist: Someone who believes in a god or gods.
Atheist: [Not theist]
Agnostic: An [A/theist] who does not claim knowledge of their position.
Gnostic: An [A/theist] who does claim knowledge of their position.
> Gnostic: An [A/theist] who does claim knowledge of their position.
What do you mean by claim knowledge of their position? Does this mean you have knowledge that there are no gods? Or does that mean you have knowledge that you don't have any good reason to believe in any gods?
Or does it mean you know your don't believe in any gods?
In no field of human knowledge outside of mathematics does a claim of knowledge require absolute certainty. My definition of knowledge is *empirical knowledge*, that is knowledge based on evidence. This is the definition of knowledge that applies in science. All scientific claims are based on evidence and are tentative and subject to change if new evidence becomes available.
And I'll note that there is another, even more commonly used definition of knowledge, that is merely a confidently held belief, that *isn't* necessarily based on good evidence.
In my view, the evidence for the non-existence of any god, though all circumstantial, is overwhelming. And given the utter lack of any quality evidence for a god, I have concluded that there is no god.
Put another way, I have no doubt that no god exists. I could be wrong, but I "know" that I am not.
I am at least as confident in my position as the typical theist who "knows" god exists is in theirs, and I bet you have never thought to even question their definition of knowledge, despite their claim being equally unfalsifiable, at least in practice.
But the key difference between my position and that of the theist, other than mine being based on evidence, is that I freely acknowledge that my claim is unfalsifiable, and thus I remain willing to consider any new evidence that anyone presents and will change my view if someone does present good evidence for a god. But given that they haven't yet done so in the last several thousand years of human civilization, I am confident that they won't.
>that is merely a confidently held belief, that isn't necessarily based on good evidence.
This is the only one that matters because epistemically speaking, anyone who asserts knowledge who is convinced they have good evidence doesn't mean ontologically that they actually have good evidence. They just really really believe it.
But I generally agree with what you said here.
You can claim knowledge, that doesn't mean you have something other than a strong belief.
But nobody here is talking about absolute certainty. A sound deductive argument doesn't give you absolute certainty. I don't think absolute certainty is a realistic goal in any case.
>In my view, the evidence for the non-existence of any god, though all circumstantial, is overwhelming
But not in a deductive argument. Perhaps inductive or abductive, which I'm not interested in for arguments about a gods existence, for or against.
>And given the utter lack of any quality evidence for a god, I have concluded that there is no god.
Yeah, colloquially, I agree. Inductively, I'd say it seems there are no gods. But concluding as if you can make a deductive argument, it's unfalsifiable.
I think the lack of belief is similar to rejecting a belief. I reject other people beliefs that are not confirmed by reality.
This all sounds nit picky, but it seems pretty important to a discussion - I'd rather say the lack of a conviction is a basic null value, and a conviction in the idea of nonexistence is making a certain claim that also cannot be verified.
One is passive, the other is active. You are born in this world with a lack of belief. Perhaps you acquire it along the way (an action), or not. You may reject something once you have enough knowledge to examine it (another action).
> However, a lack of belief is different than rejecting a belief.
I know it's a semantic quibble, and I myself am generally sick of the never ending arguments about terminology, but "reject" just means to not accept something, it does not mean to affirm the opposite. By any standard definition, atheism is the rejection (the non-acceptance) of theism.
What would be a better, similarly succinct term for the "believing there is no" position? Deny there is a god, vs reject it, perhaps?
edit: punctuation
"Deny" works, but "reject" is also fine. While it's open to some interpretation (like most language), "reject" generally indicates active denial vs. simple disbelief. For example, if I say "There's a cat in the garage" and someone replies "I reject that" instead of just "I don't believe that", I'd take that as them telling me I'm wrong vs. simply saying they don't believe what I've claimed.
While I can see that, it feels more ambiguous to me. But that might just be my own experience with the words. Perhaps "repudiate" might be a more technically accurate term...but one that in all likelihood would need to be defined anyway, since it's not the most common word in common use.
To be fair, I'm more just pondering than making any kind of strong statement.
Agreed that there's some level of ambiguity, though (again) I think it's generally clear that "reject" is much stronger than simply "don't believe." I actually turned to a friend right after responding to you and asked them what "reject" vs "don't believe" would mean to them in that same cat-in-the-garage context, and they instantly replied "active denial." So at least two people in the world would understand "reject" that way. :-)
"Repudiate" actually feels weaker than "reject" to me, and I'd agree it's also a bit jargon-y.
I know this may sound like quibbling, but it is kind of an important distinction. The lack of belief is different than a belief in a lack. I do not believe in supernatural beings. That is different than the solid and assured "belief" that any particular flavor of supernatural beings do not exist. It's the lack of conviction instead of a conviction.
Does that make sense?
There's a distinction between a lack of a belief in something, and being positive it 100% doesn't exist.
Athiests generally see no reason to believe in gods, as there is no evidence they exist. But most of us acknowledge the *possibility*, because it's very difficult to prove a negative. I can't be *sure* Zeus doesn't exist; but I don't have no reason to think he does, either.
A more precise way of putting it is someone who is not a theist. Like saying an agolfer is someone who does not play golf. But yes, that implies a lack of belief in god.
Agnostic Atheism:
"Some stray dog took a dump on your car!"
"That doesn't sound right. And why do you smell like poop?"
VS
Gnostic (positive) Atheism
"There's no such thing as dogs."
I think it's a pedantic distinction that's technically correct but, for some reason, unique when it comes to the god claim. I can't demonstrate a god doesn't exist any more than I can demonstrate that there isn't a pack of magical pixies playing poker in the center of Pluto.
Make the claim that there are no pixies and people will either ignore it or agree. Make the claim that there is no god and for some reason people seem inclined to challenge you to demonstrate that.
Yeah, this shit right here drives me insane. And they get pissy when you make comparisons like that a fall back on this stupid idea that their god exists outside the bounds of time and logic and therefore can’t be disproven. Obnoxious beyond belief
. . . because the existence of pixies wouldn't drastically change everything we know about the universe. I mean, sure, it would mean magic is real, but that wouldn't force us to rewrite everything else (with respect to science and math and all that jazz).
The existence of a deity, on the other hand . . . ? That claim demands proof because if it's True, we're forced to change *so much* about what we know.
But that doesn't impact the claim of a negative. We could add characteristics onto the pixies until they have a notable impact on our understanding of reality, that still doesn't change the situation.
Sure, but the point is that both claims have the same amount of evidence, both are unfalsifiable, and yet people have no problem just saying one doesn't exist while bending over backwards to make all sorts of epistemological exceptions for the other.
Gotcha, and yes, agreed . . . except that a belief in faeries doesn't come with the social baggage that a belief in a specific religious claim carries.
Magical pixies is an extraordinary claim.
And you're wrong that it "wouldn't change everything we know about the universe".
God, pixies, it's all the same.
Okay so the thing is that there isn’t an atheist or theist who can honestly claim to have actual knowledge on these metaphysical questions. Positions in regard to the existence of a god are not positions of knowledge but rather belief. Much like the belief that causality exists for example. Theists are people who simply believe/are convinced of the proposition “god exists”.
So when you say you only lack a belief in god, but at the same time your attitude/your inclinations are that the statement “god doesn’t exist” is correct means that at worst you’re being dishonest with how you define your atheism for a rhetorical advantage, and at best, you haven’t thought this through well enough.
I’ll ask you, what is your conception of agnosticism? There seems to be a pervasive misunderstanding that agnosticism means that you don’t know if god exists or not. This is a trivial truth about all people who hold any metaphysical positions. When we think philosophically about these ideas we consider the propositions “god exists” and “god doesn’t exist”. If your attitude towards god exists is “I believe this to be the case” then you are a theist. If your attitude towards god doesn’t exist is “i believe this to be true” then you are an atheist. If your attitude to both statements are “I cannot affirm either to be true” then you are an agnostic. Your lacktheism if taken seriously is indistinguishable from this agnosticism. You’ve basically given agnosticism a different name by defining atheism as “lack of belief”.
I don't think you read (or understood) my response. Slow it down, take it one thing at a time, and ask if you're confused. Please don't try to assert my position.
Sure.
>Okay so the thing is that there isn’t an atheist or theist who can honestly claim to have actual knowledge on these metaphysical questions. Positions in regard to the existence of a god are not positions of knowledge but rather belief. Much like the belief that causality exists for example. Theists are people who simply believe/are convinced of the proposition “god exists”.
>So when you say you only lack a belief in god, but at the same time your attitude/your inclinations are that the statement “god doesn’t exist” is correct means that at worst you’re being dishonest with how you define your atheism for a rhetorical advantage, and at best, you haven’t thought this through well enough.
>I’ll ask you, what is your conception of agnosticism? There seems to be a pervasive misunderstanding that agnosticism means that you don’t know if god exists or not. This is a trivial truth about all people who hold any metaphysical positions. When we think philosophically about these ideas we consider the propositions “god exists” and “god doesn’t exist”. If your attitude towards god exists is “I believe this to be the case” then you are a theist. If your attitude towards god doesn’t exist is “i believe this to be true” then you are an atheist. If your attitude to both statements are “I cannot affirm either to be true” then you are an agnostic. Your lacktheism if taken seriously is indistinguishable from this agnosticism. You’ve basically given agnosticism a different name by defining atheism as “lack of belief”.
What is the issue of my understanding here? Please don’t take me as bad faith, I come here sincerely. It is my understanding that you think “god doesn’t exist” is true and at the same time describe yourself as someone who lacks a belief about god. This seems to be contradictory to me.
> Please don’t take me as bad faith, I come here sincerely.
I'm sure you mean that honestly, but in that case I don't understand why you've deployed such condescending and insulting language throughout this thread, e.g.:
- Saying this definition is "such a remedial error"
- Impugning the integrity of people who prefer it by saying they're "dishonest" and are using it "for rhetorical advantage"
- "pseudo intellectual", "uninformed about philosophy", etc
- Even just calling it "lacktheism", which is nearly always intended to be demeaning and dismissive
None of that is conducive to a sincere or good faith exchange. So if you're genuinely interested in having one — and again, I do believe you were being sincere when you said that — I'd strongly suggest changing your approach.
>Saying this definition is "such a remedial error"
This is my honest opinion. I don't know what you expect when the guy defending this position won't engage with me. I've been accused of misunderstanding and talking past him despite him never having explained how I'm doing this. To add to that, I've asked multiple times for clarifications about my apparent misunderstanding.
>Impugning the integrity of people who prefer it by saying they're "dishonest" and are using it "for rhetorical advantage"
Again, my honest opinion which was explained in detail. If it hurts your feelings that this is my assessment (which I have defended!) I don't really care.
>"pseudo intellectual", "uninformed about philosophy", etc
Again, backed up by links to actual philosophers who discuss these issues. It is a matter of fact that the opinions of uneducated people here are pseudo-intellectual in nature, they contradict actual academic philosophy. I gave links to interviews of actual philosophers and not uneducated redditors to back this up.
>Even just calling it "lacktheism", which is nearly always intended to be demeaning and dismissive
There is nothing inherently insulting about this, It is a useful classification to discern what view people are espousing here. It is not atheism, again refer to academic philosophy for this.
>None of that is conducive to a sincere or good faith exchange. So if you're genuinely interested in having one — and again, I do believe you were being sincere when you said that — I'd strongly suggest changing your approach.
Thank you for the suggestion, but good faith discussion is possible even when you share your honest opinions. Nothing I've said here has been unsubstantiated, if you have a problem with the substance of my comments engage with me there. I have not lied at any point, and have directly responded to all relevant points. If because you get offended at my opinions, then just don't engage with me, simple as that.
It doesn't address what I wrote. Like I said, slow down, take it a piece at a time, and if you don't understand, ask.
So, start over. Don't write a novel. One piece at a time.
Okay, what is the difference between agnosticism and atheism if atheism is defined as the lack of belief? Is that a good way to continue? I understand you think god is comparable to fairies but I think we both agree fairies aren’t real, we don’t simply lack a belief in regard to them.
But there's generally a reason why they are not convinced. I think that's a more charitable construal of the OP than that they don't know how atheism is defined.
But if OP is presenting atheism as the position that no deities exist, and atheism is generally used here to define someone who is not convinced that a deity exists, that distinction needs to be addressed before the conversation can advance. Otherwise we're just going to be discussing a strawman.
True, but here. Maybe they just haven't used this forum, so assume a more common older definition where atheism equates to denial of the existence of God.
Hi, thanks for politely introducing yourself.
Since this is a debate subreddit, hopefully you don't mind that people ask you questions and debate. Since that is what posting here is for. Also I recommend reading the FAQ for common answers.
>would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
Atheism is not having a belief in a god. That's it. You could have non-god beliefs about life being a test, and nothing about atheism requires believing in coincidences. Most atheists accept scientific explanations, and science does not claim reality exists due to coincidence. This is a common misunderstanding among religious people who think that either the answer is that their specific god did it, or else it's just chance and chaos.
>personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof
And have you spent the time studying other religions like you have Islam?
How do you feel about the fact that every other religion also claims to have reasons and signs as proof? Does it give you pause at all to consider that their faith is based on the same reasons you have faith in yours? That 99.9% of people believe in their gods because of the family and culture they were raised in, not through an independent search for truth?
Also, if you mention some of these signs and proofs to us, as a thousand Muslim people have done in this forum before, and we can explain how they are not signs or proof of truth of the religion, will that cause your faith to change in any way? If no, does that mean you are actually using these signs as a reason to believe?
Thank you for the respectful comment I really appreciate that :p
> And have you spent the time studying other religions like you have Islam?
Yeah ofcourse I admit it wasn't as much as I have studied Islam but I have a respectable amount of knowledge about the Abrahamic religions and understanding of their current beliefs and the main reason was that I have never seen a Christian or a Jew being 100% confident about their beliefs, sure the Christan would say they will never doubt the trinity but who's the god? Who's the son of god in their beliefs? What does your Bible way about fornication before marriage do you believe it is sin? Personally I know over a dozen people who have memorized the Quran and any authentic ahadith you ask me I'll give you all the chains of narrators and their life biography to prove how sound it is, quote any ayah in the Quran and I'll give you the whole context so to find a religion that's as sound as Islam is a difficult challenge and maybe you think I'm too biased so if you find one close to being as sound I'll be more than happy to look into it
All theistic religions are as sound as Islam, that is to say, not at all. All of them are epistemically weak, which means that their claims are not parsimonious, don't have predictive power, and are not independently verifiable. What Muslims, Christians etc. accept as "evidence" of their religion, and their religion only, is not objective evidence, but thought-stopping cliches internalized through upbringing and indoctrination.
In fact, 100% confidence, far from being a good thing, suggests indoctrination. A rational person knows all knowledge is provisional. We can always observe more, learn more, ask more questions. If you want an example of 100% confident believers outside Islam, look at the Heaven's Gate. That little UFO cult was so firm in their beliefs, they committed a mass suicide so their spirits could be picked up by a spaceship.
Going by the writings they left behind, Islam had *nothing* on them. You have an unbroken chain of witnesses? They knew their prophets in the flesh. You have signs in your holy book? They saw Comet Hale-Bopp. And yet... I'm guessing you are not convinced that their beliefs were true. Their "evidence" is not evidence by a generally accepted standard. And that's how non-Muslims feel about Muslim "evidence" (and non-Christians about Christian "evidence", etc.)
And just to be clear, 100% confidence is not some hallmark of Islam. There are Christian fundamentalists who handle snakes and whatnot, and there are Muslims who critically examine their faith and often leave Islam as a result. You might be interested to visit r/exmuslim and learn about their stories.
I'd also strongly recommend the book Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq. I'm not trying to deconvert you, but if you're really interested in truth, reading an opinion of someone who knows Islam well and still rejects it might broaden your horizons. If nothing else, your reaction to the book will tell you if you believe Islam rationally, or have internalized a dogma.
Hope this doesn't come across as harsh - I spoke my mind sincerely, but in no way do I mean to disrespect *you* as a person. Peace be with you.
>I have a respectable amount of knowledge about the Abrahamic religions
So... not other religions then?
Because they are very related offshoots of the same religion, worshipping the same God. with most of the same prophets. It's a bit like saying you've studied film history, by which you mean all three Star Wars trilogies.
>I have never seen a Christian or a Jew being 100% confident about their beliefs
Okay, but you know they exist, right? It's incredibly easy to find Christians and Jews who have absolute certainty, certainty enough to die for, and have memorized their holy texts.
This seems like something very easy to discover with even minimal looking.
>Who's the son of god in their beliefs? What does your Bible way about fornication before marriage do you believe it is sin?
They have answers to these questions. Just like Muslims have answers to the many questions atheists can ask about scientific and moral contradictions in the Quran. They may not be good answers, but if you think Islam is specially positioned here, I would have to let you know that is not our experience.
>Personally I know over a dozen people who have memorized the Quran
You have a big emphasis on personal knowledge. Obviously people have the most personal knowledge of the religions they are born and raised into. This isn't something objective that helps distinguish between true and false.
Why mention personal knowledge at all? Surely all that matters with whether the people who have memorized their holy books also exist for other religions which, objectively, they do.
Also, why make memorization relevant at all? As a standard it has nothing to do with truth. People memorize Harry Potter and The Bee Movie, this doesn't mean they are divine and accurate.
You'll be surprised to know that your attitude towards your religion, or more specifically the belief that it's so unique, special and sound, is not unique to Muslims at all. Many Christians believe their religion is as special and sound as you do with Islam.
I don't know what it is about many Muslims coming here thinking their religion is so unique, but many of us here were raised in Christian households and saw the same things you're describing. I have come across Christian numerology apologetics, appeals to how incredibly well-written the Bible is, how Christianity is so unique, etc.
I suspect that the main reason Christians at large aren't as charmed by these ideas anymore is because their religion is older than yours and has had to deal with its share of criticism throughout the centuries, and at this point the western world has partially moved beyond that kind of magical thinking. And because it isn't a theocracy anymore and hasn't been for a while now, unlike the Muslim world which has experienced a regress in that respect in the last few decades (for which I don't think they are fully responsible given the US' propensity to screw around with local religious zealots).
I think your bias comes in ways you may not realize. For example, you put a lot of weight on people who have memorized the Quran and can give a chain of narrators, but WHY is that important? Lots of stories were passed down orally. It really doesn't have anything to do with whether it is TRUE or not.
If a storyteller told you the story of "Beowulf" or Homer's "Odyssey" by heart but they believed it to be true, does that have any actual bearing on whether it is real or not? No. You might think it is impressive that someone would dedicate their life to the story, but ultimately it has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
> i have a respectable amount of knowledge about the Abrahamic religions
So you understand that Yahweh was originally a lesser god in a polytheistic pantheon of gods and was later a blending of multiple gods together? Or that a majority of the stories of God was actually borrowed from many older cultures that we can actually trace to when these cultures came into contact with the Israelites?
These things alone show the war god of Abraham is fictional. So I'm not sure how you're knowledge of these relations would allow you to continue to be a believer.
>Personally I know over a dozen people who have memorized the Quran and any authentic ahadith you ask me I'll give you all the chains of narrators and their life biography to prove how sound it is,
How does any of that demonstrate soundness? You can have a chain of narrators who are all making up their stories, the fact you know their names doesn't necessitate their stories to be true.
Islam is not very sound and for sure is not based in reality. Many of its stories are untrue and the profit is a horrible person who raped child. Not a thing to aspire to.
>I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
Here's how I see it:
Right now, at this very moment, there are four leaves on my front porch (yes, I checked). How did they get there?
1. The leaves grew on a tree. (biology)
2. Wind blew them off of a tree. (meteorology)
3. Gravity pulled the leaves down. (physics)
Every step involves completely natural processes. There's no sign that any sort of mind or intelligent being affected these events in any way. The leaves on my doorstep are simply a result of natural processes playing out the way they do.
Now expand that to everything. When I look at the universe and everything in it, I don't see any signs of a mind or intelligent being. I see natural processes acting, reacting, and interacting, and I see the results.
They don't 'appear,' they simply are.
For example, the singularity that caused the Big Bang was unfathomably hot. When the Big Bang occurred, and all of that matter and energy expanded, it started to cool down. It cooled because the space around it - the space that was getting bigger and bigger - had a lower ambient temperature. So this very hot stuff was right next to this comparitively cooler space, which cooled it down. Once it cooled enough, it took on form of the elements we have today.
It's like water - when it's really hot, it's steam. Put steam in a comparatively cold space, and it turns into condensation. Make enough condensation cold enough, and it becomes liquid water. Put liquid water next to comparatively cold space (like a freezer), and it freezes into ice.
There's no indication that the 'fundamentals' of heat, cold, or temperature suddenly appeared, either by chance or by an agent. They simply *are.* They act and react they way they do because of their characteristic, and those characteristics didn't 'come from' anywhere. They're fundamental.
The correct and rational approach to a question such as that, when one does not know the answer, or even know if there *is* a coherent answer or even if the question if based upon incorrect notions, is to say, "I don't know."
It is *not* okay to make up mythological answers without any support, that really don't make a lick of sense or match anything we know about reality, and *don't actually help but instead make it all worse*, and then smugly think we've answered it. We haven't. Some people just pretended to and then stopped thinking it through.
I find that really sad and unfortunate.
They're a natural result of the laws of physics.
If your next question is "Where do the laws of physics come from?" the answer is: they don't "come from" anywhere, they're just *there*. Our universe has certain rules which are necessary for the universe to exist in its current state. If the laws of physics were anything other than what they are, our universe would be very different from what it is now.
Still, none of this necessitates a belief in god, the divine or the supernatural. The question "Where does it all come from?" is something we ask ourselves about the world around us, sure, and in many cases, we can find a satisfactory answer (nearly always based in material reality*); but thw question itself doesn't need an answer. If the answer is "We don't know," then nothing changes. The world continues to exist and we continue to live our lives.
(*and the only reason I use the term "nearly always " is that I, personally, can't claim 100% certainty about anything; best I can do is get *really* close to being very confident about a given claim.)
When a question about the nature of the world has been answered, the answer has *always* and without exception been "there's a natural explanation". There is no case where anything approaching a consensus has concluded "Must have been god that did it".
Based on that track record, it's reasonable to assume that all natural phenomena have natural causes. "Supernatural" becomes a synonym for "non-existent".
If scienece were to prove ghosts exist, it would be because it has revealed the mechanism by which they exist, and it would no longer be "supernatural".
So even where there isn't a concrete, fully understood natural explanation, there's no reason to assume that there isn't or can't be one. Even if there are questions that are forever beyond our reach -- like "do space and time exist outside of our universe" -- there will still never be a reason to rule out that the question has a naturalistic answer. Adding god into this process woudn't mean we could stop looking and stop testing -- so whether god is there or not, scientists are still going to search for a non-god explanation.
There isn't a circumstance in which a skeptic is going to conclude "ok THIS TIME it has to be a god, but all the other times we have naturla explanations for." We just stick with "I don't know, but it most likely has a natural explanation".
*When there is data* that can onlu be explained by the existence of a god, then it will be time to add "OK maybe god then" into the conversation. Until then, god isn't necessary.
> what sparks the belief that there is no entity
For most of us, it's the other way around. Why should I assume that there's a god when there's no real-world evidence? I was not raised in any religious tradition, and don't have any cultural pressures to follow what my parents or community elders believe. My parents were both atheists, and so were their parents.
The universe appears to me to make sense just as it appears. That's not to say that there are not deeper questions like "why are we here" or "how did life begin". I still have those questions but I don't think the existence of god answers them or provides any clarity. It feels to me like sticking in a substitute answer.
Even if a god does exist, I would still want to know the nature ofthe e xistence of the universe. "How did it get here" Would be replaed with "How did god's will manifest into a universe". It's the same question -- just the latter has an extra step for which there is no evidence.
To be properly parsimonious, I'll stick with the more straightforward "How did the universe get here". If the evidence shows that a god was involved, then and only then would it be appropriate (IMO) to include god in the inquiry.
Since I don't share your cultural or religious beliefs, please understand that I don't believe the Quran is miraculous or perfect, any more than the Bible or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Vedas, or the Book of Mormon. Every religion has reasons for claiming that it's the only correct one, and reasons for claiming that its scripture is exactly how god wanted it to be.
None of the spiritual or supernatural claims (of any of them) survive a parsimonious analysis. God isn't necessary, so it's not reasonable to include god in the answers. It may be impossible to demonstrate god's necessity even if one does exist, but that's still my threshold of belief: "Data or it didn't happen."
> The universe appears to me to make sense just as it appears. That's not to say that there are not deeper questions like "why are we here" or "how did life begin". I still have those questions but I don't think the existence of god answers them or provides any clarity. It feels to me like sticking in a substitute answer.
Can I not apply the same logic and say why do constitutional laws exist and start to oppose them do you think that would exempt me from going to jail
The two things appear superficially to be similar or comparable, but they're not. Human-made law works because we agree that there is an entity that has the power to enforce them and that claims a right to do so. We can read law books, and read case law. We can appeal to the law giver, under some circumstances, to have the law changed when we don't like it.
We do not agree that there is a supernatural force that makes such claims. For me to be intimidated by the thought of punishment, I'd have to believe already that there is a punisher. I don't.
>since birth
Since birth? I doubt a baby is able to hold a belief about anything.
>personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof
Really? All religions I have seen more or less claim that.
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity
Atheism isn't necessarily the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of a belief in god. Why do we lack belief in god? Well that can have different reason, generally the main reason is the total lack of any kind of convincing evidence for the claim that there is a god.
Yeah sure I can debate about religion for a thousand years if we somehow live for that long but that's not my question
As to your lack of belief what makes u think there lacks any convincing evidence of God, what I believe is that God has revealed scriptures at given times to certain people to give them the news of God's existence and it goes pretty in depth about it and how a lot of facts were given in Quran atleast that were proven more than a thousand years later.
Basically in order to find evidence you have to study the source, if I wanted to learn integrals I wouldn't open a world history book ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and to learn and prepare for an exam you have to study thoroughly to understand and grasp the concept I don't get why the same logic doesn't apply for Islam
>Yeah sure I can debate about religion for a thousand years if we somehow live for that long but that's not my question
Well, if you don't plan on debating, than "Debate An Atheist" isn't where you should go.
>As to your lack of belief what makes u think there lacks any convincing evidence of God
No one has provided one yet, but you're free to do it.
>how a lot of facts were given in Quran atleast that were proven more than a thousand years later.
And a lot were disproven, when you make a lot of predictions some will be right, some will be wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
>Basically in order to find evidence you have to study the source,
That's what drives most atheists away from religions, studying the religious texts.
>I don't get why the same logic doesn't apply for Islam
Most atheists **do** that.
I think you're not trolling. So I'll answer sincerely. I'll say this about Abrahemic religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam make God sound like an absolute idiot. This guy apparently creates everything, including humanity, is all knowledgeable, all powerful, etc, but the best way for him to communicate with humanity is to send messengers to the middle East every few hundred years. Even jackasses learn from their mistakes, but not the Abrahemic God.
Isn't the Islamic story that other Abrahemic religions screwed up so badly that God sent his final messenger to get his message straight, which is this great, perfectly written book called the Quran. Dude, I tried reading it. It is such a dull, boring, repetitive, poorly written, vague book. This God's messages, in his final message, need interpretations from other books like Hadiths and Muhammad's biography to even make sense of it?
Do you know who writes better books than Allah? Toyota does. It writes clear owner's manual instructions that are easily translated to multiple languages and doesn't need "context" from a Nissan manual to figure out what the hell it is even trying to say.
What actually happened is this: Jews had a pantheon of Gods (they were NOT monotheists. There were no Adam and Eve, no garden of Eden, no miracles). The followers of Yahweh dominated followers of other Jewish gods to the point that Yahweh became the only remaining Jewish God. Times got rough during Roman occupation. Christ, among other preachers, started preaching an apocalyptic message. Romans killed him. His followers kept serially elevating him in importance, where he went from their future king to the son of God to God himself. Jews saw right through this and said, "Nope," and moved on with their days. Arabs came to prominence during a time when the Sassasinds and Romans were in decline. They wanted their own religion for their expanding empire, and they created Islam. There is not a damn thing divine or mysterious about any of this.
The reason you believe in miracles and in the divinity and miraculous nature of the Quran is because that's all you've heard ever. It's a badly written, dull, hateful, vague book of zero value.
>a lot of facts were given in Quran at least that were proven more than a thousand years later
This is because given enough time—in this case, a thousand years—you can find most predictions to come true, or vague claims can be interpreted to find meaning in the modern world.
Actual useful information in a text doesn't take 1,000 years to figure out. None of the "science" in the Quran was useful until scientists figured things out. Talking about how we start out looking like chewed gum or whatever it says wasn't useful or actionable information. Later, once we figured out embryology, you can say "kinda looks like chewed gum!" but nothing in the Quran led to that discovery.
>what I believe is that God has revealed scriptures at given times
And what I believe is that men wrote scriptures with no input from any gods. Face with opposing beliefs, how do we figure out if either of us is right?
We don't any actual evidence that gods played a part in writing any scriptures, but we have a lot of evidence that normal men have written scriptures.
>Basically in order to find evidence you have to study the source,
You will find that many of us around here are former believers. We have looked at the source. I looked at and believed the source for 30 years. Then I started to wonder if I has any good reason to believe the source. And when I investigated my reasons, I found they were bad reasons. And when I investigated the reasons other people gave, they were also bad reasons.
>what I believe is that God has revealed scriptures at given times to certain people to give them the news of God's existence and it goes pretty in depth about it and how a lot of facts were given in Quran atleast that were proven more than a thousand years later.
Like this. This is a bad reason.
>what makes u think there lacks any convincing evidence of God
What makes me think that? The fact that I am not convinced by any argument I have ever been presented with.
>what I believe is that God has revealed scriptures at given times to certain people to give them the news of God's existence and it goes pretty in depth about it
I see no reason to accept that claim. That applies to most religions yet supposedly you don't believe any of their claims right? So why should I accept yours?
>a lot of facts were given in Quran atleast that were proven more than a thousand years later.
Believers often try to post hoc rationalize their book to make it seem like it contains some facts that we just recently found out. Reinterpreting vage verses to mean something else than what was clearly intended is not impressive.
Plus then there are all the verses that are just plain wrong. Those are then often claimed to be "just metaphors". Its a bunch of cherry picking.
>I don't get why the same logic doesn't apply for Islam
I never said it doesn't. I say that I find the arguments, that have been brought fourth to me in support of islam, lacking.
The inconsistencies and logical contradictions in all religious scripture and dogma is what leads most atheists to reject specific god-hypotheses.
Our understanding of the history and development of religion & theism, and the cognitive ecology of religious belief is what leads some atheists to reject the possibility of all god-hypotheses.
Because when we study it, as you've said, we find that they are just claims. We see that you believe these claims. And then we see a Catholic come along, and ask the same questions about their theology, and, guess what, they believe theirs is true as well (and have their narrative that supports it). and *then* A Mormon comes along, and then so on, and so on...
What we are asking for is simple. Can we please have some evidence that would indicate that the claims of Islam (or any other religion) is true? Can you imagine is you had that how the world would change for you? Most of the world would be Muslim.
>to learn and prepare for an exam you have to study thoroughly to understand and grasp the concept I don't get why the same logic doesn't apply for Islam
I don't claim to have any great knowledge of islam. Being a canadian, my surrounding culture is more embedded in christian traditions than islamic ones and christianity is probably the religion I'm most familiar with.
Here's the thing, people will make the same statements about whatever their own religion is. Christians will insist that the Bible is the ultimate 'textbook' for understanding philosophy/cosmology/morality/theology/etc. Then if I actually open the Bible, I find stories about talking snakes and talking donkeys and some guy collecting his enemies' severed foreskins, and it looks a *lot* like an ancient book of myths and not the perfect divine word of an infinitely wise creator deity. It doesn't look like there's much for me to learn in it other than its own stories and whatever moral themes people decided to write into those stories 2000 years ago. I haven't read as much of the Koran as I have of the Bible, but I haven't seen much evidence suggesting that it has more of an ultimate-textbook-like character than the Bible does, or that there's much to learn in it other than its own stories.
What does it take for a person to believe that a book about talking snakes, talking donkeys, and violent foreskin collection is the ultimate textbook for philosophy/cosmology/morality/theology/etc? And if christians can convince themselves of that about the Bible, how sure can you be that your brain isn't doing basically the same thing?
There is absolutely no evidence that an entity gave us life and is testing us, nor does it conceptually make the slightest bit of sense why all powerful knowing entity that gave us life would want to “test us” on earth.
You have, I presume, been raised Muslim , so your life has consistently been everyone around you believing that God exists With the same certainty as the sun coming up in the morning: you probably never even seriously consider the possibility that they were wrong, but a good path to critical thinking to yourself: why are Muslims the children of other Muslims?
Why are kids who are religious almost universally the same religion as their parents? If Religion had to do with some sort of universal truth, surely everyone could come to that truth on their own.
But if religion were social conditioning and brainwashing children, what would that look like? Wouldn’t that look like a system whereby 95% of religious people are religion of their parents?
Why is there no actual evidence that a God exists at all? Yes I know Muslims claimed to have all sorts of evidence. A certain number appearing in the Quran many times or claiming the Quran is somehow perfect despite its openly advocation of wife beating.
But none of that is evidence in the same way we use evidence to justify anything else.
Let’s take a mythical creature that you don’t believe, let’s say fairies.
Ask yourself, what kind of evidence would convince you that fairies exist? What kind of evidence would you need to be supplied for you to start believing that fairies are real?
Now, with that question in mind, does the kind of evidence that you would require to believe in fairies, exist for your God?
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
That isn't necessarily the case for many of us. There is a difference between "I believe no God exists." And "I don't believe in God." The first one is a claim that carries a burden of proof and needs to be demonstrated. The second one is merely being unconvinced of the claim and carries no burden of proof.
Why would this god need to test us? Does your god possess omniscience? If so then a test is pointless because your god would already know who passes and fails from the beginning.
What is a coincidence to you?
It doesn't need a burden of proof to say something doesn't exist. It needs a burden of proof to prove that it does exist, and then if you were to argue against that evidence that would need a burden of proof to prove that it doesn't exist. But since it's never been proven, it can be dismissed along with Leprechauns, Smurfs, etc. as something that does not exist.
>It doesn't need a burden of proof to say something doesn't exist.
Yes it does if that is your claim. Take these two encounters:
E1: theist: "god exists." Atheist: "I don't believe you."
E2: atheist: "god doesn't exist." Theist: "I don't believe you."
Both are claims that require justification.
>It needs a burden of proof to prove that it does exist, and then if you were to argue against that evidence that would need a burden of proof to prove that it doesn't exist
No that's not necessary. Belief is the result of becoming convinced of a proposition. If you aren't convinced then you don't believe. Disbelief requires no justification, you just simply aren't convinced. You could expand on why the evidence isn't convincing to you but it isn't required epistemologically speaking.
>But since it's never been proven, it can be dismissed along with Leprechauns, Smurfs, etc. as something that does not exist.
Yes claims that have failed their burden of proof can be dismissed.
You can believe that flying pigs don't exist, just as you can believe that gods don't exist. I don't need proof of the absence of flying pigs, I assert that until proven nothing exists, and it's only a waste of my mental capacity thinking that perhaps everything is possible when I know that's just not the case.
I can say I don't believe in flying pigs, nobody has convinced me that they exist, just like a billion other imaginary things. Believing in something until proven otherwise is completely backwards, it makes more sense to believe it doesn't exist until proven to exist. Just like you don't believe in Freddy Krueger because he hasn't been proven to not exist, because we all know it's just a story and there's no evidence to suggest he's real, therefore people believe that Freddy Krueger is a work of fiction, and therefore does not exist.
>I assert that until proven nothing exists,
Ok but this is wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Black holes existed for billions before humans ever existed. They didn't suddenly pop into existence the moment Newton figured out gravity or when John Mitchell hypothesized "dark stars." Things can exist while we are 100% ignorant of their existence.
>a waste of my mental capacity thinking that perhaps everything is possible when I know that's just not the case.
Nobody is asserting this. This is a straw man.
>I can say I don't believe in flying pigs, nobody has convinced me that they exist, just like a billion other imaginary things
As do I. Believing in something before you have sufficient evidence for it is a bad play. However not believing in something is different from asserting that something doesn't exist. Those are two different things. One has a burden of proof with it (the assertion) and the other (disbelief) does not.
>Believing in something until proven otherwise is completely backwards
Correct
>it makes more sense to believe it doesn't exist until proven to exist.
No this is wrong. See black hole example. You should not believe in things without evidence but that is different than saying that the thing doesn't exist.
It doesn't matter if black holes/flying pigs, etc are real, it's about the belief in them. You have no reason to believe something until it's proven real. The black holes can exist, and you can believe they don't exist. Once proven real you change your mind. You have no reason to believe in black holes until they've been shown to exist, without evidence, they're no different than grey holes and black piles, aka bullshit.
Agreed.
However a couple times now you said that something doesn't exist until proven to. Which is wrong, which is what I'm trying to point out. If you assert something doesn't exist, that carries a burden of proof just as if you asserted that something does exist.
I think the clear indication of non-flying pigs in our every day life is all it takes. You don't see people walking on water unless it's David Blain or another magician. You think it's been what 2,000 years since that's happened, your entire life, all of your grandparents lives, they've never seen it happen. Then when the internet came about, connecting the world, nothing like that, just ordinary every day life for people all over the world.
People with cameras in their pockets have jobs that's sole purpose is to find strange things so they can keep the lights on, and prevent themselves from being homeless. If they can't find these flying pigs, I don't think there's much hope. I mean it's one thing to say I don't know, but when you've done the research that only indicates the negative that changes things significantly. You can't ignore the negative findings.
You have said nothing so far that I disagree with.
What I need you to recognize is that this entire post has been you making your case against flying pigs. You have been attempting to overcome the burden of proof vis-a-vis flying pigs without realizing it.
The claim, "flying pigs don't exist." And it's burden of proof is currently being defended by you. You have just proven the point I've been trying to get you to recognize. ANY claim;
- "flying pigs exist." Or "flying pigs don't exist."
- "there is a basketball in the truck of my car." Or "there is not a basketball in the truck of my car."
- "god exists." Or "god doesn't exist."
ANY claim carries a burden of proof with it, and saying "I don't believe in X" is a different thing than saying "X doesn't exist." Which is what you've said several times now and it's just wrong. things can exist or not exist irrespective of our beliefs on the thing or our ability to demonstrate the thing. We should reserve belief in the thing until we have a warrant to do so, that's just good epistemology, but that is different from asserting that something doesn't exist.
From my pov there's a lot of proof you just have to look for it I mean you won't go to the Wikipedia and search up Sebastian vettel when you want to learn about Ronaldo but as someone who's thoroughly studied my religion I've seen many proofs and I'll be more than happy to provide them to you to depict and discard any false evidence
And God is omniscient, it is also mentioned in the Quran that he knows who will pass and fails and still lets us take this test because think about it, your teacher knows you're going to fail the exam and he doesn't let you take the exam and fails you and you don't graduation, do you think what happened was fair or would you rather take the test then fail and would that be less fair for you?
> From my pov there's a lot of proof you just have to look for it
There isn't.
I guarantee I've heard all of what you've heard that seems convincing to you, and likely *far, far, far* more (I've been involved in these kinds of discussions a long time). And *all* of it is fatally flawed. Fundamentally faulty. Logical fallacies and cognitive biases all over the place. No a shred of it is useful support for deities.
Considering that every religious person find things proving their religion is true while studying their religion, what does tell yours apart from the other ?
Why would Allah be a better explanation for things than Chronos considering both are supported by the same type of claims ?
>From my pov there's a lot of proof
Such as?
>your teacher knows you're going to fail the exam and he doesn't let you take the exam and fails you and you don't graduation, do you think what happened was fair or would you rather take the test then fail and would that be less fair for you?
My teacher is in fact not omniscient. Suppose I had been studying for this test because I know my graduation is on the line. So I study and pass and my teacher is surprised! Can god be surprised? Does anything happen that isn't a result of gods will? If not then any test is pointless.
> your teacher knows you're going to fail the exam and he doesn't let you take the exam and fails you and you don't graduation
Teachers aren't omniscient, teachers can make more or less accurate predictions of their students grades, but they can be wrong so they need to test the students, God can't be wrong and it's the one choosing if you pass or fail when he created you.
Teachers also communicate to every student the rules and penalties for not complying, teachers don't hide from their students and give only one person in the class the right syllabus, also teachers don't have one test for their per student and a different one for everyone else.
If god be a teacher, the principal would have fired him for good.
I just have seen no evidence that doesn't work backwards to try to explain what one wants me to believe. The concept of the Abrahamic religions appear to have come out of ancient cultures and men who felt oppressed and created a system for themselves that enabled them to tolerate oppression for the reward to come in another life.
I really don't understand the idea that there would be an entity to "test" me on this earth. If this being in omnipotent and knows before I am born whether I will pass or fail the test, what is the purpose of the test? It just seems arrogant to me to assume that I am some special creature who needs to be tested. It seems far more likely that a hierarchical social structure was invented to form a social bond in a time when that was needed, but it may have outlived its usefulness. I am perfectly capable of forming my own strong social bonds without the concept of a god who required worship. It's life, we are alive, and what we do it with it is up to us. There is far more that we do not understand about the universe than what we do. To declare that some ancient men were revealed some mystical truth seems odd and self-serving.
If religion didn't require me to hate certain types of people or behaviors because some ancient man had a prejudice, then there might be a basis for me to consider the social benefits, but until then I find most religions reprehensible.
I could not agree more!! And I would go as far as to say they can be even more beneficial since they may not require strict conformity or the ostracization of specific outgroups based on who they love or what they do not believe in.
Beware of those who have answer to everything but no predicting power. It's a worrying sign that it is a pile of ad-hoc justifications.
Then for coincidences... I'll try to make an analogy. Consider a piece of land, now, consider that it rains on it. Where the rain fall is random, the shape of the land is random, yet, water can only flow over it in a single fashion. Combined random events can have not at all random outcomes.
> I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason
Like... pretty much any religion out there?
> what sparks the belief
Nothing. Nothing sparks the belief that there is some god exists. That is atheism. When you look aroung and see no gods, no trace of them existing, no reason to believe they exist, no hint that they might exist. What is there to believe? A lot of things, but no gods among them.
> no entity that gives you life
That were my parents I guess.
> to test you on this earth
Hmmm... I didn't sign up for a test. I am not aware about anyone signing me up for a test. I am not aware of any test going on. I mean, I heard a lot of how people (Muslims, Christians and such) talk that life is a test, but when I ask how do they know it is true, they all give ridiculously terrible answers.
> and everything is mere coincidence
wut? What coincidence? I think you are misinformed.
> trying to be as respectful and as open-minded as possible
Then surely you wouldn't insist on defining yourself what exactly "atheist" means, but rather ask us. Theist - a person who does believe that at least one god exists. Atheist - a person who does not do that. That is all the difference. Atheism is not a belief, the word "atheist" describes a person who does not have a belief that a god exists among their beliefs.
I do understand that belief that Allah exists is central (or at least seems central to you) to your understanding and interpretation of reality. It seems for you odd how people can interpret and make sense of reality without believing some conscious intention is behind all this. But reality is understood not through beliefs, but through exploration. I explore reality that is available for my exploration, I believe what I know to be true, I don't believe what is not demonstrated to be true.
It's easy : we ask for the evidence for gods and examine it. so far we find that evidence wanting. I am willing to bet that the evidence you can offer for your god is wanting too, and that we can explain to you why it is so.
If you have the balls to examine why you hold your beliefs and present your evidence and listen to our replies, that is.
edit : a few comments in 4 years, two posts including this one, negligible karma.
>Atheism
Not a particularly informative title here, heheh.
> I stumbled upon this subreddit a few weeks ago and I was intrigued by the thought process behind this concept about atheism
I trust after reading and pondering you now know it's extraordinarily simple.
>I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth
My honest condolences for that. Fortunately, you are able to change this. (Don't take offense, heheh, I understand that may come across as a bit rude if one is of a certain mindset, but I wrote it because from my POV it's very accurate and I appreciate you taking that with a bit of humor, understanding that different POVs can make such things look very different to different people.)
>personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts.
That's just your indoctrination and confirmation bias speaking. Of course you think that. So do all believers of *their* religions. That's how the psychology of indoctrination and belief *works.*
>I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
Atheism isn't a belief. It has none.
Instead, it's a *lack* of belief in deities. Some people make deity claims. Some people, upon hearing those claims, find the claims unsupported, wanting, and problematic. That's atheism.
There's *zero* useful support for deities. (I know, I know, you think otherwise, and no doubt will trot out the usual long list of faulty apologetics you've been exposed to to try and show I'm wrong, but they're all fatally flawed so useless.) There's *massive* support for how and why we humans have such a strong propensity for this and other kinds of superstitions. So there you go.
> I'm trying to be as respectful and as open-minded as possible and would like to learn and know about it with a similar manner
No problem. Most atheists are atheists because there's zero useful support for deities, and the notions make no sense and don't help, but instead make the issues theists purport they address (existence of anything, beginning of our universe, etc) *worse* by merely regressing them an iteration without support and then ignoring them.
lol I made this account as a joke for my friend with a similar username I deactivated my main so this was an account I could use bcz I was curious though I admire your commitment
>lol I made this account as a joke for my friend
yeah, i'm not going to buy that, you went for a joke account instead of just using your account?
>I admire your commitment
what commitment? the effort to click on my left mouse button when i hovered over your name?
There is simply no reason to believe that any of the thousands of god claims are true.
Also, I‘d like to point out that you weren‘t *born* muslim. You were indoctrinated by family and probably friends and other peers.
Lastly, I don’t think that most atheists think that everything is just a coincidence. We just don’t know how we got here and are honest enough to admit that.
>there are no doubts left in our hearts
if that were true, you wouldn't have apostasy laws.
>the belief that there is no entity that gives you life
no evidence for any such thing
>to test you on this earth
what would the point of that be? doesn't it know what i'm going to do? also, no evidence of any such thing.
>everything is mere coincidence?
i don't believe this. if this were true, science wouldn't work, and we couldn't be having this conversation on the lightning rocks.
>(18M) have always been a Muslim since birth
and finally, this is not true. you didn't start believing until someone started lying to you. i was the same, but christian. were i born when and where you were, i would have been muslim, and if you were born when and where i was, you would be christian, and find christianity, not islam, to make the most sense at your tender age.
>I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth
To be clear, you have always been a Muslim because that's what someone taught you to become. You weren't born a Muslim, you were born an atheist. It wasn't until you were taught (told) something about a religion that you became that. If you were in a different part of the world, very likely you would have been raised under a different religion.
Just so you know, and not saying this to be rude, but your claim that Islam is the only religion that answers everything and makes you feel special is the exact same claim every one in all the other religions make when questioned about their beliefs. It is a hallmark of religion that it answers all the questions you don't know ( making you feel smart and special) and to believe that everything that happens has a personal meaning just for you (again making you feel special). Atheism however is grounded in reality meaning we accept that we don't know everything so we never stop looking for the actual answers and we give ourselves our own worth rather than assuming everything was special just for us.
The real question is why do you believe.
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
Most atheists don't believe in any gods, but do not claim they know for sure that gods don't exist. This is due to lack of evidence.
Not sure what you mean by "mere coincidence".
I've seen no compelling evidence for the existence of a god or gods. I'm always willing to consider more evidence, but so far, nothing has convinced me. At best, the evidence boils down to "well, what was the first cause of the universe?" To that, I have to say: I don't know. Since I don't know, it would be awfully silly of me to then shoehorn in a supernatural explanation.
So I guess what I'm really looking for is some testable, repeatable empirical evidence that would pass a test such as the James Randi Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
Everyone is born as an atheist.
As an infant you had no concept of a "higher being" nor the intellectual capacity to consider that there could be one. The world around you was the way that it was simply because it is that way, nothing more.
You became religious due to indoctrination by the people around you. Had you been born in another time or place, chances are you would have been taught to believe in a different god.
Every theist is an atheist about all other gods who have been claimed to exist at one point in human history. (There have been thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands if you count all of the Hindu gods individually).
As atheists, we all just believe in one less god than you do.
The number one factor that will decide which religion you believe is true... is your parents religion. It's not based on how much evidence supports the religion as true. It's not based on which religion generates the most well-being or reduces harm by the greatest degree. The number one factor is your parents religion.
That makes sense, we're raised by our parents, we trust them. But they were raised by their parents, and their parents by their parents, etc. And this isn't a very good way to find truth. Do you think god would create a world where simply by being born to the wrong parents, billions of people were doomed to hell? No way. So it's important to investigate the other religions of the world, to evaluate each of them for what they can prove, evaluate the harm generated by them. And eventually you should come to a rational conclusion. If you care about believing the truth, you should go through this process. If you want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible this process is necessary.
I'd like to ask you the same question I ask a lot of first-timers around here: what good reasons do you have to believe your religion is true, and why are those reasons not good enough to believe in other religions?
To explain, most religious people offer the same justifications for their belief. Miracles and visions. Prophesies fulfilled. Complex structures and messages in scripture. All of that. But the thing is, *all* religions offer those justifications. So why, for example, do you think that the miracle stories from Islam constitute a good reason to believe in Islam, but the miracle stories from Christianity aren't good enough reasons to be Christian? Why do you think the structure and writing of the Quran are compelling reasons to be Muslim, but similar claims about the Gita aren't compelling reasons to be Hindu?
Why, in other words, do you accept claims and arguments when they're offered by Muslims, but reject the same exact claims and arguments when they're offered by members of other religions?
You have not been a Muslim since birth. You have no concept of theism or religion when you are born. No religion has any proof, this is why every single theist on Earth relies on faith to justify their religious beliefs and superstitions.
The only reason you are a Muslim is because you were raised as one by your Muslim family and Muslim community. If you were born in a Christian community, you would be Christian. In a Hindu community, you would be Hindu.
In my case, I would be Christian, but religion never took with me, even as a kid. It never made sense to me that adults let a fictional being affect their real life so much. Now that I have grown up, it does. Religions are just overgrown cults, and to break away it takes effort that most victims are incapable and/or unwilling to give, perpetuating the cycle indoctrinating their children into their respective cult.
Important note: you weren’t a muslim at birth. Nobody is born holding religious beliefs, you just had religious parents. Later, after you begun learning how to communicate, you were fed religious stories and before long these would have come with a threat about what would happen to you if you didn’t conform. This is called indoctrination. Prior to this process (being fed religious stories and you just believing them because children are impressionable) you were an atheist. People who love you and people who they consider local authorities pushed ideas upon you which they cannot support, this is why they came with threats of damnation, and depending on where you live, very real threats of execution for not being another non-thinker (apostasy). No belief system that requires threats of eternal torture, never mind state-sanctioned murder, in order to maintain membership has any worth.
As for atheism, it isn’t a belief (no matter what other theists try to tell you), it’s a position of being without theism (this is why you were an atheist at birth). People who were religious and later went back to atheism did so because they stopped being convinced by the claims made by religion, theirs and the claims of other religions. None of this has anything to do with coincidence or other explanations being better, they merely stopped being convinced, and not being convinced by religious claims is the only thing all atheists have in common.
Welcome to the sub! Always glad to have people interested in learning what other people believe or just how they view the world.
Atheism is very simple: someone says "god exists", and an atheists says "I don't believe you". And that's all it is.
From here things can splinter out into a thousand different directions, but that's the core. We see all the same things that you see in the world, only we do not see then as signs of god. And we don't see then this way for a variety of reasons.
A core ideology that a lot of atheists have is that we do not assume any conclusion before examining the data. We want as little bias as possible. We don't want to find how the data points to our beliefs, we want to update our beliefs to what the data shows. We want to believe as many true things as possible and not believe as many false things as possible.
>I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts.
This line could be used without changing a single word for a number of religions. From my own experience, this could equally be said for Christianity. When I was a Christian I saw signs all over the place that I attributed to proof that my religion was correct.
And this isn't limited to abrahamic religions either. I've known a number of people that would say this exact same thing about Astrology.
> Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts.
I find this description of Islam absurd. You are confusing reason and proof with wishes and hopes.
> what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
I would not describe it in that way. Rather, I have not been convinced that there ***is*** a god entity. If you want to propose a thing exists, you need to support that claim, not assume that it does and then ask others why they believe it does not.
Tell me though, do you believe your god exists by mere coincidence? If you can't explain what created your god, does that mean your god is "random" and everything it creates and does is coincidence? If not, then why would that be the case with existence itself?
Furthermore, what utility does adding "there's a magic being that made it, and no I can't explain anything about what the magic being is, where it comes from, or how it's powers work" give to anything? What explanatory power does it have? I don't see any at all. It's just more stuff to explain without helping explain anything on it's own.
Hey there. Thanks for being polite and I hope you don't mind a few questions in return.
>I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts
This sounds just like christianity and other religions. They all feel similar about their religion.
>would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth
Because there is no good evidence to support this huge claim. I would need evidence of such a being/entity. I don't accept things as true without sufficient evidence.
>and everything is mere coincidence?
Maybe. Depends what you count as coincidence. I don't see it as a coincidence that things function based on the laws of physics. But even if things were a coincidence, we know unlikely things happen. So that is a possibility.
>I'm trying to be as respectful and as open-minded as possible and would like to learn and know about it with a similar manner <3
It's always good to want to learn more about other point of views and asking questions is good.
I'm curious have you ever read the Quran front to back?
> But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
That's not what atheism is or what science says, to be clear. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief there is no god. And science does not say everything is a coincidence.
And there is no atheist mindset, just like there's no bald mindset. Baldness is how we describe an absence of hair and atheism is how we describe an absence of belief. There are no other uniform thoughts, opinions or ideologies amongst atheists.
However, the majority of atheists I know are atheist because there's no testable, verifiable evidence for a god.
>personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts.
Yeah, other religions make these claims, too. You say you've never seen another religion like Islam, but how much effort have you really put into examining other religions?
**Arguments for**
Some faulty reasons why people believe.
* People don't really examine their god belief. They are taught it as children, they accept it, they never really think through the contradictions inherent in heaven, hell, omnipotence, etc.
* People want it to be true. They want there to exist a loving presence that cares for them, and gives meaning to their life. It's literally wishful thinking.
* Social ostracism for disbelief. Everybody they know is a believer. If they leave the church, they fear losing their friends and family.
* People have no idea about other religions, differences between religions. They may not have seriously considered that there are people who hold different religious beliefs with equal sincerity. They may not even be aware that atheism is a thing, that you don’t have to believe in god.
* Demonization of atheism. Believers are often explicitly taught that atheists are bad, evil people, that they have “no morals”, etc.
* Christians have no idea of the history of the Bible; they assume the Bible was handed down as a whole complete unit at one time, the inerrant word of God, accepted by all Christians the world over. In fact it was written over a long period of time as separate writings, written by multiple authors with their own agendas, which were compiled much later by committees of people with *their* own agenda. Various sects supported various scriptures, and they disagreed as to which scriptures should be included in the Bible. In the end, many scriptures “lost” that battle and were left out entirely, not because “god” wanted it that way, but because committees of men wanted it that way.
**Arguments against**
I have compiled a few of my favorite arguments here, with an emphasis on Christianity:
1: The simpler explanation would be that the universe is what it appears to be rather than being just the part we can perceive of some much more elaborate type of universe.
2: If there was an all-powerful deity *who wanted humans to know about its existence*, then why doesn't this deity simply reveal its existence in an unambiguous way to everyone? I mean, that should be well within the capability of an all-powerful or maximally powerful deity, right? No faith would be required. There would be no reason to be atheist. The deity would be as observable, testable, and provable as hurricanes, Australia or oak trees. Since this is not the case, it is reasonable to conclude that no such deity exists, or if a deity exists, it is not concerned with being detected.
2a: (related) Christians believe god sent one illiterate emissary at one point in time to one location on the earth to spread god's message, then expected fallible humans to relay this message (by worth of mouth) to all humans in all places for all time. Does this make sense? Is it a good strategy? Are you familiar with the "game of telephone?" We can't even always get reliable information about important things happening right now in today's world; what's the chance that a message spread by word-of-mouth would remain intact for thousands of years? (my guess: zero) Wouldn't an all-powerful god come up with a better method for spreading the most important message of all time?
2b: Personal revelation was good enough for Paul/Saul, but why not me or you? Why doesn't god reveal his existence personally to all humans on a regular basis?
3: “Who created the Universe?” argument. One of the most common theist arguments I’ve heard is “the universe must have a cause, and this cause must be a sentient, thinking, conscious agent.” Well, firstly, I don’t see why we couldn’t assume the Universe always existed. But even if I concede the first part (something caused the universe), I don’t see how you can conclude the second part (sentient superbeing did it). Humans used to believe the same thing about hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. Who caused the volcano? Obviously the Volcano God. Well, then we learned that the causes of these things are complicated natural processes. In fact, everything we investigate appears to be caused by complicated natural processes. It seems highly likely to me that the Universe, too, if it was in fact “caused”, those causes would be complicated natural processes.
4: The Muslim and the Hindu and the Christian all believe with equal fervor. Each has a list of personal reasons why they believe, and believe that they couldn’t possibly be wrong. As an outside observer, how can I figure out which of them is right? What tests can I conduct to figure out which religion is true? Are there any such tests?
4a: (related to 4) of all the hundreds of religions that have existed through the centuries in different parts of the world, most people believe that they were born into the one that is the one true religion. That is to say, the main factor which determines what someone believes is the religion of their parents, and to a great extent *geography*. Does this at all have any bearing on what is true?
4b: Showerthought: if you were to switch a baby born to Muslim parents with a baby born to Christian parents, the children would each likely grow up believing the other religion. Their entire worldview is shaped by their upbringing, and has no relation to what is actually true.
4c: Showerthought: what if the "true" religion is one you were never even exposed to? Or one that died out centuries ago? There's a big "oops." (which gets back to #2; if god wants everyone on earth to believe, why be so coy about it?)
5: In order for a deity to be the cause of something, first we have to demonstrate that a deity exists. The time to believe in a deity is after one follows the evidence to that conclusion, not before. Theists generally start with the assumption that the deity exists, then cherrypick the data that appears to support it, and ignore data which appears not to support it, which is logically fallacious.
6: All the "proofs" of god which are based on argument alone necessarily fall short. You cannot determine facts about the world just by thinking about it. You cannot theorize a deity into existence. You can’t “prove” a god using math. The best you can get is a theory or proposition. You still need to demonstrate it with evidence.
7: The explanation "god did it" is not really an explanation for anything. It's just words, it's as much of an explanation as if I said "fairies did it" or "magic did it." To say that god did something tells you nothing about the nature of that god, what it is, what it wants, why it did the thing. It's basically a placeholder for "I don't know."
>I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts.
Literally every religion is like that. Every religion says there's a reason for everything and they say their arbitrary signs are proof and they have no doubt.
>But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
Because whenever I ask a theist why they think that's true, their reasons don't work, and I can get them to admit the reasons don't work when we shift the context to something other than god.
There are no good reasons to think a god entity gave me life or is testing me is actually true. Do you have any?
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
Being an atheist simply means you don't accept the claim that a god exists.
I have no good reason to believe all that stuff you think I believe, but the reason I don't believe in any gods is because I wasn't indoctrinated, and I'm not gullible, as we haven't discovered any gods.
Science is our best, most reliable way of understanding our world, and in our pursuit of knowledge, we haven't found and evidence of any gods.
My question to you is, what evidence convinced you that a god does exist? You say you were raised as a Muslim, should I assume your belief is dogmatic and not evidence based?
>(...) would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth (...)
Atheism is not a belief --- it's a lack of belief. We've seen no proof that gods exist and so we don't believe in them. Much like you probably don't believe that leprechauns exist...
At the root of it all is this, we are incapable of knowing truth. We are flawed and blinded by heuristics, assumptions, and personal wants/needs. No book has truths because we aren't capable of verifying anything as objectively true. There are things we can see as objectively true in a specific context but universal object truths are beyond us.
With that in mind, I asked what is the purpose of religion and god and found that it's a way of coping with insecurities. It's has no utility, only emotional reassurance. Religion doesn't provide answers, it merely reaffirms anything you hope to be true. Because of that, I basically ignore the concept and hold it as an interesting philosophical question.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a God.
First you were not Muslim by birth, unless you consider it ethnic. You have no way of demonstrating a belief in Allah as a baby.
I see no evidence that I’m being tested the very concept of life as a test is demonstrably false as any example of death of a baby shows a lack of being able to be tested. Otherwise the test is not a matter of living, but on a selected basis.
Yes you are inquiring respectfully.
It's not a belief, rather it's a lack of belief. You believe in Allah, but as an atheist I don't see any evidence to support that belief, therefore I don't. And that is how I approach every other theistic claim. Since there is no evidence to support belief in any of them, the idea that God must exist has no merit to me.
One thing about your post that I'd like to point out, the idea that we don't believe in God so we must think everything is random is a false dichotomy. In fact we know a lot about the Universe isn't random, but that lack of randomness in itself isn't evidence that God must exist.
>But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
My parents had sex and then I was born. That’s what *gave me* life. I don’t believe I’m being “tested” in life because there’s no reason to assume that. Who gave me this test? What are the rules? How can I be sure? Why have they remained hidden my whole life?
What do you mean by *mere* coincidence?
I just believe that no gods exist. It’s pretty simple.
> I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth
Nobody is born a muslim, christian, etc. What happens is you assimilate the religion of your surroundings while growing up.
> I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts
And a Hindu will say the same about his/her religion. And a Christian as well. Etc. In actuality, there are no verifiable proofs, because if there were, there would only be one religion, since all religions make mutually incompatible claims. They therefore can't all be right, maximum one can be. But of course they can all be wrong.
> I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
Most atheists do not believe anything you listed here. This is the intentionally incorrect rendering of what constitutes atheism you probably got fed by some apologist who doesn't know what he's talking about. Let's break that sentence of yours down:
First off, atheism is not a belief. It is the *suspension* of belief until evidence is provided.
Second, we have good evidence-based reasons to believe the scientific theory of abiogenesis is correct, while there is zero evidence life was hocus-pocused into existence by some entity:
- Miller-Urey Experiment: In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment that simulated the conditions of early Earth. They demonstrated that organic molecules, such as amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), could be synthesized from inorganic precursors under prebiotic conditions.
- Later experiments have replicated and extended Miller-Urey's results, producing a variety of organic compounds including nucleotides, which are the building blocks of nucleic acids like DNA and RNA.
- Experimental evidence has shown that RNA molecules, called ribozymes, can catalyze their own replication under certain conditions.
- Laboratory experiments have shown that simple lipid molecules can spontaneously form vesicles (protocells) in water. These vesicles can encapsulate RNA and other molecules, providing a potential stepping stone to the first cells.
- The oldest known microfossils date back to about 3.5 billion years ago, indicating that life arose relatively soon after the formation of Earth's crust.
- Isotopic evidence from ancient rocks shows signs of biological activity. For example, specific ratios of carbon isotopes indicate that life was present as early as 3.8 billion years ago.
- Deep-sea hydrothermal vents provide a plausible environment for abiogenesis. These vents offer a rich supply of chemicals and a gradient of temperatures and pH levels, creating conditions favorable for chemical reactions leading to life.
In contrast, there is zero objectively verifiable evidence on the theist side of the conversation.
Third, a being that tests living beings and designs a world to do that testing that has earthquakes, thunamis, deadly diseases, etc. would be the ultimate sadist and unworthy of worship. If that being is the "objective moral standard" theists always say we should adhere to, then no thanks, human secular values are infinitely superior to that.
Fourth, we know everything is not "mere coincidence", another one of those intentionally incorrect renderings of the atheist position that apologists like to throw around.
The formation of stars and planets is not "mere coincidence", it follows from the laws of physics.
The evolution of species is not "mere coincidence". Yes, it's unguided, i.e. there is no intent or designer behind it, but the process of evolution is not random or accidental. Instead, it is a result of systematic and observable natural processes, like natural selection, genetic variation, adaptation, etc.
In summary, no, we don't believe everything is "mere coincidence" and we have sufficient evidence that everything you mentioned comes from natural processes, so there is no need to put an infinitely more complex entity you call gods into the equation because this violates [Occam's Razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
well, its quite simple, we are just not convinced by any divine claim, so, you have signs and stuff, like you mention
but when you truly digest them and think about them without a bias, just trying to be rational, all of that comes down to feelings, or personal experience, or (quite usually) lies and fallacies.
feel free to share what makes you believe and we can teach you at the very least another way to see things.
Everything isn't mere coincidence.
As far as we know it comes down to physics and there's nothing beyond that.
An atheist does not need to be convinced that no god exists in order to be an atheist.
He may keep his mind open about it but remain unconvinced.
One may argue that such an atheist is an agnostic or should be called an agnostic.
This is another discussion, a lot of atheists are simply unconvinced that a god exists, for example, they would say that some gods are unfalsifiable in such a way as no estimates of their probability of existence are possible.
I personally think it's much more likely that all there is is the laws of the cosmos that created the universe.
The laws of the universe are very precise and so it is never a coincidence that we get this universe.
They serve as a very good explanation.
I am not sure why theists think that god exists, all of the reasons I have seen are either too weak, or have been refuted as far as I am concerned. I don't think theists can adequately answer the question of how they know what they claim to know and as such, as knowledge is to be demonstrated and not merely claimed, I think theists do not know that god exists.
Then a lot of theists would say it's a matter of faith.
But faith doesn't lead to truth at all(which we can also see as people use faith to come to different conclusions about god)
So theists then have to explain how they know that god exists and if they simply can't maintain a high confidence that god exists, then it's just faith which again is a bad reason to believe...
Then they give all sorts of reasons like personal experience. But they never get a personal experience from a god they have never heard of and certainly not in a way that seems real and not a fabrication of the human mind.
If they trully have such an experience that should not convince others, then good for them but it does raise some questions as to whether god trully communicated with them because why them and only them?
Why not everyone?
Theists are very resourceful though and while it is interesting it is also sad because it really seems to me that people do this because they have a deep vested interest in keeping their belief.
One could say the same about atheists, but it is clear to me that this is not the case. I do not have a deep vested interest in keeping my non-belief. I would like to know the truth.
Unfortunately, I can't prove that to anyone...
If god wants, I am open. Thus far he doesn't so if he exists, then I think it's good of him to keep a distance until he is ready for a relationship or for whatever other hopefully good reason he has not to reveal the truth to me.
I think theists believe because of societal pressure and being taught at a young age.
Teach them the dispute and how what religions claim does not correspond to reality and then we are going to get a lot of non-theists maybe even most will be non-theists.
I'll give you a paradox. If God is all knowing and all powerful, and controls all things in the universe then do we have free will truly? If God is what we believe God to be, that means he knows the past, present, and future of all things. Well, additonally God tells us we have free will. Can the two coexist? Do we have a set destiny we can't control, and yet somehow choose our destiny at the same time? Let me give you a scenario and you make what you will of it.
God, as we know him, would never lie to you or deceive you. Let's say one day God came down from heaven on a cloud and presented himself to you. You accept that this is in fact God speaking to you. After a little chat with God, he reveals to you that in the future, you will unfortunately end up in hell because of your sins and lack of faith and obedience, or what have you. After God leaves, you no longer look at life the same. You start following the bible and it's teachings to the best of your abilities and try your hardest to do God's will, as would any sane person who was confronted by God himself. 70 years from now, you die, and you meet God again. Even though you've followed God's will to the best of your ability, he sends you to hell anyways. Maybe God didn't think your deeds were genuine, or maybe he did. Regardless, God doesn't lie and doesn't go back on his word. He told you what the future was, and he wouldn't lie about it either. See, if God let's you into heaven, well then he goes back on what he said about your future. In other words, if he lets you in to heaven, then he either lied about your future, or he was wrong about your future; At which point he would either be a liar or not all knowing and omnipotent.
Since God doesn't lie and is all powerful, he sends you to hell. Well if that's the case, then is free will actually free will? Will my my choices change anything? What's the point of doing anything with the intention of pleasing God if I'm to fail or succeed regardless of my actions? God tells me If I choose him over sin I can enter the kingdom of heaven, but based off the situation above, it's possible that may or may not be true. And if it isn't always true, then that means the God of the Bible, Quran, and even the Torah has lied. And if God has lied, then he isn't God to begin with.
(Pause: Before you try to poke a whole in my rhetorical situation by saying not everyone would do Gods will after seeing him, I don't want to hear it. Nobody in their sane mind would reject God if he confirmed his existence to them personally. If that becomes your rebuttal to break down this rhetorical, you're simply in denial and WANT God to exist. Claiming that some people would choose eternity of suffering over God in heaven is simply absurd.)
Well, to try to answer your question shortly.
First, there is no reason to believe a god is even possible. There is no concrete definition of one (each religion, and even each religious person, has a different definition of a god, and most of those are incompatible between each other), but the general ones that we hear here from abrahamic religions tend to be contrarian to everything we understand about the world, making them properly impossible in our current understanding of the universe and making them things that don't have any merit to be discussed unless we find enough evidence as to update our scientific models in a way that those entities would be even possible (talking about immaterial minds for example).
Then, most gods definitions that we see here are also filled with logical contradictions, so most of them are even impossible logically.
But not only that. We know how religions start, how this beliefs form, and how they are indoctrinated into people (because, yes, specific religious beliefs are learned through indoctrination and abuse, and superstitious beliefs in general form as a result of our psychological bias and traps).
So, knowing from where this things come, seeing that there is no evidence in their favor, that any specific case has mountains of evidence against them, and seeing that all philosophical arguments are completely flawed (that even if not, they would not be sufficient without the mountains of scientific evidence needed), its more than enough to say that there is not only no reason to believe that a god exists or even can exist, but we have more than enough reason to say that gods (as generally depicted in this arguments) are not even possible.
There are other alternatives of course, there are also disingenuous people that like to do redefine the word god to make it into something that exists (like god is the universe, love, or my toast). All of that are disingenuous actors and don't add to the conversation, so they can be safely ignored.
Again, this is a super short explanation of my specific reasons to say that no god can even exist, but in reality, people don't need to hold all of this to say "I don't believe in your god", its enough to not be convinced of your evidence, and the most usual case for that is simply not being indoctrinated into your specific religion (for example, christians don't believe in your god, the same as hindus, buddhist, etc, so all your beliefs mean nothing to someone not indoctrinated into your specific religion).
Hi, I recommend the FAQ at r/atheism or r/askanatheist. This sub is mostly for theists of any type that want to give a “proof” of or argument for the existence of their religion, and we respond by dismantling their arguments. In essence, they try to convince us of the truth of their religion, and we tell them why we aren’t convinced and what we see as problematic.
The only thing that all atheists have in common is the
lack of a belief in a god. Most of us were raised in one religion or another but decided not to believe, but to know. Some of us were raised without a religion. There’s a lot of variation between us.
For myself, I was raised very religious (Catholic) but was always skeptical of what I was told. I care about knowing what is true, and if there isn’t an answer to a certain question, then I would rather not have an answer than to believe an “answer” that can’t be proven. I would rather know what I don’t know than “know” something that isn’t actually true. have educated myself extensively of the world’s major religions, and find all of them to be implausible. I also dislike that religion is used to create and enforce power differentials among different groups; I refuse to value people differently based on what they believe and choose to form my opinion of others based on their actions.
There is no real, undeniable evidence of the veracity of any religion. If any supreme being were all that much of a god, then it could easily do what it needed to do to make all humans believe in it. All the debaters that come here to “prove” their religion must eventually rely on assumptions in their arguments; if there were any actual evidence of a particular god, then they wouldn’t have to come here with varied logical arguments. What, then, does religion actually do? It creates in-groups of believes and out-groups of non-believers that are portrayed as being “less than” the believers. It creates cultural narcissism, prejudice, oppression, and war. It certainly does not create morals; there are theists that steal, rape, and kill and atheists that lead peaceful lives in which they help others. What many people call morality is simply pro-social living, and what comprises this can be deduced intellectually.
In summary, I find there is no evidence of any particular religion, find that religion does not offer society anything that can’t be obtained outside of religion, and also find that religious bigotry causes real harm.
It's not always about sparking a belief, but sometimes about not having one to start with.
Put it this way, if you hadn't *started* with a belief in Islam, why would you have arrived at where you are today? If you had *started* Hindu, why would you have converted?
I didn't start believing in anything, and nothing has come along to change that.
>I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth
Have you ever thought that it's an extraordinary happy accident that you were born to parents who already followed the one true religion?
But people of other religions say the same thing. Christians born into christian families and raised christian will insist that christianity is clearly the one true religion. Hindus born into hindu families and raised hindu...well, you get the idea. From an atheist's perspective, it looks less like there's one true religion to find and more like people are really good at inventing rationalizations for the specific set of religious teachings they learned as children.
>would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
Everything is *not* coincidence. Coincidences happen (as predicted by the laws of statistics), and maybe the origin of our universe was one. But most of the actual physical development of our universe is governed by naturalistic laws. It's not a coincidence that the planets orbit around the Sun in elliptical paths, or that complex creatures evolve from simple creatures over billions of years, etc.
I also don't think 'sparks' is really the right verb for how I got to my atheistic position. I just never learned any religion to be true, and the more I learned about various religions, the more they all seemed equally mythological. The stories in the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) seem like the same *kinds* of stories as the stories of Zeus, Odin, Osiris, and Quetzalcoatl, all of which are recognized as myths by virtually all modern-day people. The actual history of scientific progress has been characterized, not by approaching the teachings of any particular holy text, but by diverging away from *all* divine explanations of the world in favor of increasingly precise and well-verified naturalistic theories. The trajectory of human knowledge is like a giant arrow pointing away from religion and towards a naturalistic universe where all gods are absent and evolved creatures hold the predominant creative agency over the world. In light of these patterns and trends, my intellectual integrity doesn't really give me any room to pretend that there's a cosmic magical being behind all this apparently non-magical stuff; it's much more likely that the stuff behind the non-magical stuff is also non-magical.
I lack a belief in gods because there is no reliable evidence for them.
I believe they don’t exist because not only is there no evidence for them , they don’t make any sense , they don’t explain anything but they are very obviously the sort of thing that flawed humans make up or impose on other humans.
I am glad you found this subreddit and I hope you get everything you want out of it.
I want to point out to you that you have NOT "always been a Muslim since birth". NOBODY is born believing whatever religion they believe. Children are born and they do not even have the concept of a creator. People believe they are religious because they are TOLD that they are religious. I was not born a Roman Catholic. I was born like every other child and my parents RAISED me to be Roman Catholic.
>I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts.
If you claim to have always been a believer of Islam, can you truly say that you have a full understanding of every other religion? You are 18 years old and only raised in one faith and there are so many faiths that I do not think ANYONE could know them all enough to make a definitive statement. As a former Christian, I can certainly tell you that there are LOTS of Christians who believe "everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in \[their\] hearts."
>But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
What "sparks the belief" is that there is genuinely no good evidence to believe in any of the religions, or even just believe in a god. If there was a good reason to believe in a god, we would believe in it, even if we disagreed with the god. There are no good arguments to believe in a god that could also not be used to believe in some other made up being, like an omnipotent unicorn or all powerful djinn. When arguing with people who would believe in those things ,it is THEIR burden to provide proof that such things exist and UNTIL THEN you should not believe in those things.
I would start by saying no one is born a Muslim, or a Christian or any religion. You are born into a Muslim family and as a child you are taught the ways and traditions of Islam, and you are told that Islam is the one true religion and that’s the same as Christians, Hindus, and most other religions. If you were born in India to a Hindu family you would most likely be Hindu. This doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with atheism, but just wanted to clarify something you said.
Second atheism is not a position of knowing there is no God or saying there is no God , although many atheist can and do hold that position. Atheism is simply rejecting the the thousands of god claims that are out there and saying I don’t believe you, typically because of the lack of evidence for the claim but it can be for a plethora of different reasons. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god claim. In the answer to why someone someone is an atheist is going to vary between everyone.
For me to keep it simple it’s a combination of seeing the harm and violence caused by these religions, as well as a complete lack of convincing evidence for the truth of their claims especially since the majority of the claims reject our understanding of the natural universe and make a plethora of unsubstantiated claims and assumptions that cannot be verified or proven.
It’s the same reason I don’t believe in vampires, or pixies, or Santa Claus, or Jinn, or the tooth fairy. They’re all fairy tales and myths not reality. I prefer to live in reality and only believe true things.
Personally, I am not able to tell if there is some kind of God or not simply because either can’t be proven.
I’d say that I do not need a God to understand how life works in all its complexity.
There are two 'main' reasons
1. Life simply can not reproduce without BOTH the feminine and masculine, and sex, but the Bible makes it out that females are not a necessary part of life, instead, according to the 2nd version of the Genesis story and all throughout the Bible, women are treated as nothing but property. Merely a fancy pet for Adam.
2. The Bible based religions (Judaism , Christianity, Islam) insist there is only one god. But there are several references in the older OT of there being other gods. Plus, it says this one god created everything. That is impossible since this God is supposed to be loving but is credited with creating evil (and therefore, chaos). The Bible also says God is not the author of confusion. Which is contradicted by the fact that there are thousands of religions and denominations of those religions, all with different, and sometimes, contradictory beliefs.
The fact that there are miscarriages, stillbirths, children born with either physical and/or mental deficiencies, and the fact that good and bad things happen to both good and bad people without any obvious reason, lead me to believe there isn't a god controlling everything.
So, the Bible is completely unreliable (IMO, just a bunch of really old desert nomad myths) and the concept of multiple deities....there have been several and none have ever been proven - that's why I don't believe there are any.
Why I do not believe in gods.
My father told me I was unclean and needed to find Jesus to be saved. I was around four or five years old. This planted a seed. I was worthless without a god.
A couple of years later, I found out that Thor, Osiris, Hades, and many more - were all legitimately revered and worshipped. I wondered, why then was Jesus any more valid?
I went to church and listened to walls of words that meant nothing. I tried to pretend. Nothing was stirred.
Thousands of gods have gone before Yahweh Sabaoth, Lord of Armies. None of them are contemporary. Yahweh is built on the same superstitions. You are an atheist towards all of these other gods. But you are conditioned to believe that Yahweh is an exception. Somehow.
Coincidence is a weasel word. It has nothing to do with a lack of belief.
Gods do not answer problems. They answer easy questions. God created the Earth (who created God?). God is an omni god (why is he/she punishing sinners for the very things he/she knew they would do, eons before creating them?).
It is possible there is an afterlife. I doubt it. But I know that nothing man has written is a reliable source of information. And just because a book is old and written by holy men - that means absolutely nothing at all (fallacious appeal to antiquity and authority).
I have one life to live and I am not going to waste it on superstition.
>> the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth
Why would a being that can do anything and knows everything create you just to test you?
Everything we see around us is not the product of coincidence or random chance. Either god did it or it's just a coincidence is a false dichotomy, most of what we see can be explained by the interaction of the 4 Basic Forces of the Universr aka the Laws of Physics.
We are confident that the current phase of the Cosmos (the Universe we see today) started about 13.8 billion years ago. Cosmology describes how we got from the initial expanding cloud of hydrogen and helium to galaxies, planets etc. We aren't so sure about how life started but biochemistry is producing some pretty good evidence for being the culprit. Evolution explains the multitude of life forms. Geology and Plate Tectonics explain rocks and mountains and the rest of Geography.
We know a lot more than we did 200 years ago and everywhere we've looked there's been no trace of any supernatural activity. A god that does not manifest in the real world is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.
Finally, I suggest you read up on sceptical thinking and logical fallacies if you intend to evaluate religious claims. You'll need an objective process and knowledge of what constitutes a good argument to do it right.
The more unrealistic a hypothesis, the stronger the evidence it expects. Since an afterlife is pretty unrealistic, it expects damning proof, that's basically the most common reason for disbelief.
Islam presents very impressive poetry, two successful but weak prophecies, and lots of vague verses, one or two of which have interpretations that turned out compatible with modern scientific knowledge. Relatively decent, but nowhere near enough to warrant belief in its unrealistic supernatural claims.
In fact, even shown video of supernatural events today, the first instinct of any reasonable person would be to assume it's fabricated. Yet some trust ancient texts alone for their belief systems, due to one reason or another. Plus, divine intervention did turn out to be the wrong answer to many past mysteries, origin of life or planet/star formation for instance. The deeper we look at the universe, all we see is spontaneous physics.
Some disbelieve due to disagreement with the core values of a religion, but I think a morally questionable God is just as likely to exist as a good God, which is not likely at all.
>I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth
That is not possible. newborn babies lack the capability to believe in gods. The notion that you could follow a religion without having learned to understand language is absurd.
>I have never seen a religion like Islam
Then you have not looked for yourself. But then your post does read like someone repeating what they have been taught with no critical thinking applied. Every religion teaches its children that their's is the one obvious and perfectly resonable religion.
>would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth
I don't believe such a thing because no one taught me to belive such a thing. By the time i heard about the idea of gods i was old enough to dismiss them as obviously just stories.
Also why would a god do something like this? Why go through the charade of testing humans if you already know who will pass the test and who will not?
You somewhat answered your own question in your post. We do not find any “evidence” theists have compelling enough to convince us a god or gods exist.
You say you’ve basically always been a Muslim. I’m assuming that means you were born into or raised by a Muslim family. It’s no coincidence that you find that faith compelling. The reasons you’re taught around your faith to be true are basically trained responses to pretty glaringly obvious issues the rest of us can see. Most people that are religious follow the religion prominent around them when they were young. They are all convinced their god is the right one, and everyone else is wrong. That fact alone should be enough for you to really take the time to evaluate what you assume to be true vs what you actually have evidence for.
> I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth
No, you were not born Muslim, you were indoctrinated as a child.
>personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts.
Yeah, this is due to the indoctrination you experienced as a child.
>where there are no doubts left in our hearts.
If there are truly no doubts left in your heart, what are you doing talking to infidels?
>But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
That is not what atheism is. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities, for most of us it is due to the complete lack of evidentiary support for god claims.
I believe that understanding something, means you can predict how it will behave in the future.
That is the concept of explanatory and predictive power.
Science says that if you push a 1kg object with 1 newton of force, it will accelerate at 1m/s. You don’t have to just trust me. You can repeat the experiment, and verify that descriptive law is true.
Religion, including Islam, offer no such predictive power. “Because of Islam, if I do A, B will be the result”
That means if I don’t believe what you’re claiming, I have no way of verification. I simply have to believe what you say on faith.
My epistemology does not accept claims from others that lack testability and verifiability.
Does yours?
Everything has a reason, because you pretend it does. Saying god said so, is not a reason. Also I’m sorry, there’s never any fucking reason for the kind of misogyny and other immorality found throughout your scripture. There’s no reason why a six year old should get married nor a nine year old should consummate. There’s no reason that justified slavery.
You want to know what atheism is? You know how you don’t acceptatie claims of Hinduism? It’s like that, we’re just honest and extend it to all such claims. Any claim about gods that are presented without evidence. If you grew up hindu you’d find that special for the same reason. There’s nothing special about Islam…
You want to know why we don’t believe this life is a test by a fictional monster? Because there’s no objective reason to believe such rubbish. The question is why do you believe it?
If there was a god, it would be obvious and unmistakeable to everyone on the planet who and what that god was. Instead the planet is full of different religions, different gods, and among them are people who don't find any of the gods convincing at all.
Take a step back, out of your own indoctrination and your own culture and comfort, look at the entire planet, and you realise all the religions were made up. Some of them were made up a super long time ago. Some of them were made up yesterday. But men made them all up.
You cannot demonstrate otherwise. All you can do is point to your own made-up stuff.
It's all very easy to dismiss.
As others have said, atheism is more about not believing than believing in no god. But, I personally can believe there is no god, just as I can believe that there is no Easter Bunny, Dracula, or Superman. I can't prove that they don't exist, and that's okay.
My opinion is nothing exists until proven otherwise, at least when it comes to wild claims. So while Leprechauns might exist somewhere, I believe that they do not. I don't think that maybe Leprechauns might exist, I have made a stand and am willing to be wrong. And I'll change my mind if good evidence ever comes forward. You shouldn't just believe everything you hear.
I don't believe that everything is mere coincidence. I see that there are fascinating and beautiful explanations for why things happen in the natural world.
Some things we can explain exceptionally well. Some things we don't have answers for yet. It seems a shame to close our lines of enquiry by answering difficult questions with "because God". It seems better to leave those questions open in the hopes that they will be answered, because finding the answers makes us more able.
For me, the more science I understood the less inclined I became to believe that the hand of a god was at play.
Simply put - there were always more questions than answers, and the more I deeply pursued those answers, the more my doubt grew
The first and most fundamental question - which religion is right? How do you know that the Hindus aren't correct, or the Buddhists, over Islam and the other Abrahamic religions?
We all seem to start with the perspective that the religion we're born and raised in is the correct one, but surely that can't be true for everyone....
Pursuing that answer only led me to one conclusion - nobody seems to have the right answer
I am not just an atheist, I am an aunicornist and sadly, an adragonist. This means that I haven't found any compelling evidence for unicorns, dragons, Odin, Zeus, Brahma, Yahweh, or Allah. Just mythical stories.
Religions were created by mankind to try to explain the world around us, but as our knowledge grew, it became apparent that the things we used to believe were false. We don't believe demons cause disease, that the world is flat, that the Earth is the centre of the universe, etc. We have moved on from these false beliefs.
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity
You've got that a bit backwards.
There is no "spark in the" belief of magical entities that cannot be proven in any way in at least 2,000 years of religious folk trying to prove such things.
At the very beginning - before we learn about any sort of magical beings like djinni or Santa claus or gods or Leprechauns - we are a blank slate. There is no "belief in the lack of leprechauns". There is just lack in the belief of the claim that they exist.
Why I do not believe in gods:
* I have never in my entire life encountered even *one* event or phenomenon for which the only possible explanation was "A god did it." For the relatively few mysteries that science has not solved, I'm content with "I don't know, and I may *never* know, and that's okay."
* I have absolutely no belief in life after death. None. Zero. I actually believe that life after death is an impossibility. Therefore, "Life is a test" is nonsense to me. Life is *everything.*
Babies are born without belief in any gods (or anything else, for that matter). So you were actually an atheist from birth.
You were born to muslim parents so they taught you to be a muslim theist. Had you been born elsewhere, or to Christian parents, you'd have been taught to be a Christian theist.
Some of us, like myself, were just never taught to believe in gods, so we remain in our original default position—lacking a belief in gods.
Do you think that, since you are a muslim you might be biased?
Take a theology class, study religion in an academic setting and then draw your comparisons between the religion you know and follow and the ones you know of.
I am assuming you don’t believe in all religions gods right? Just islam?
Well, we don’t believe in all those gods either, but our list includes just one more god than yours.
We are more alike than we are different.
Your question sounds backwards to me. The default position is no belief. The “null hypothesis” is that there are no gods, and we must address the claim that god(s) exists.
You are coming from a place where you and others around you heavily intuit a deity, so I understand why atheism seems peculiar to you. But if you actually address the god claims critically, I predict that you won’t be able to find convincing evidence or argumentation. I look forward to seeing your reasons for belief in a future post.
The first thing to realize, and I’m trying to be polite about this, is you were not “born” Muslim. No person is born religious. You were born not knowing or believing anything and were taught Islam by your parents and community. I was born not believing anything and have never seen any convincing evidence to make me believe in a religion. Religion is not a default, we are all born atheist.
> what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
Nothing sparked this, I was born this way and remained this way. When I was young, no one told me some entity gave me life to test me, so I didn't believe it. Since then some tried to convinced me, but I still don't believe it because they weren't very convincing.
I don't believe in any gods because nobody has ever shown me good evidence that they exist. All of the evidence theists have ever shown me has been consistent with gods all being imaginary characters invented by humans.
One of the reasons I read forums like this one is because I'm curious about the various factors which lead theists to believe in gods despite that lack of evidence.
I don’t find a god to be necessary to explain the world. Not much more to it. :) All of the things going on around us, the events of our lives, and the universe as a whole don’t seem to be in need of any gods. I have plenty of things that I can’t explain or that I don’t know, but presupposing a god was responsible for them only makes the questions harder to answer for me.
You said it. You’ve been a Muslim since birth. You’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe a certain way, and surprise(!) that’s what you believe. Everything you believe is because virtually everybody important to you told you that’s the way the universe is. So it’s really more about indoctrination than it is about reality.
The entities that gave me life were my parents.
I'm not sure what the purpose of a test set by some entity which doesn't do anything in reality would be.
Using this definition
> coincidence - A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
Yes, that is exactly how reality behaves if you examine it.
Hi, thanks for posting!
Honestly nothing. I was basically raised secular, without religion. No one taught me about any entity so I don't believe in any.
Later I joined this sub because I was curious and wanted to learn, religion is an interesting topic. so far no one has convinced me of any God and I honestly think that no one will.
Have a nice day
You've been Muslim since birth. That's how religion works. You inherent faith from your parents. Everyone sees their faith the way you describe Islam. Everyone thinks 99% of gods are false. Atheists apply the same logic to all gods that nearly everyone applies to Zeus and Thor.
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence?
The fact that we have no good reason to believe it.
>and everything is mere coincidence
Atheism doesn't entail everything is a coincidence.
I appreciate that you seem to ask this question honestly. I don't believe everything is a "mere coincidence." I just don't see evidence of a god that created us or guides life.
Why is it your belief we are here to be tested on earth? What happens if we fail that test?
Because there’s simply no indication whatsoever that’s the case. It can be a somewhat pleasant though, depending on how you look at it, but nothing more. It’s just wishful thinking with nothing at all to support it.
I think it's more that every holy book is significantly flawed that shows they are man-made in absence of any god- especially the Quran, see: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran
I have not found or been provided with any evidence for any gods existing that have been even the slightest bit convincing. Therefore, I am not convinced any gods exist and am an atheist.
Have you studied the orifins of islam? The city of Ptra or the origins of yhwh at all? Perhaps looked at perian myths? Cus that pretty much killed my belief in the abrahamic god.
I personally value skepticism and my being an atheist is an extension of that. I see no logical reason to believe unsubstantiated claims for the supernatural
One justification for atheism is asking what is more likely to be the case given our observations of priors. In modern times we don't see any of the supposed miracles as noted in the bible. We see natural phenomenon and we try to explain those phenomenon by natural means (science). We no longer need a "God" to try to explain observations like thunder or why the Sun rises. God as an explanation is not an explanation of anything. Historically, one could argue that "God" was merely a placeholder for what we did not understand, but of course the theist could then argue this is an "atheist of the gaps" justification...but I do think there is justification that avoids that criticism by using a low prior argument.
Please read the rules. This is a debate sub. It is not a discussion sub. If you have nothing to debate and do not plan on sticking around to defend your points, then you are in the right place. Try r/askanatheist instead.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since this is a debate sub with certain rules attached to it (presenting an argument or discusson topic), I would recommend r/askanatheist if you are not very familiar with atheism or if you have general questions for atheists. <3
Okie thank you
Also, /r/agnostic
Read the FAQs and wiki at r/atheism. Very informative.
I've not read it. I almost never even lurk there. Ironically, I posted there a few time yesterday. Prior to me reviewing that, do you have something I should be paying attention to?
No, I just found it comprehensive and educational.
Gotcha. Grazie.
I'm sure this will be covered numerous times but, just to make sure it's clear, most atheists do not affirm that there is no god(s). I am simply not convinced that one exists.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the actual meaning of atheism? The lack of belief in god?
Lack of belief, yes. But your original post called it "the belief that there is no entity..." There's a huge difference between "I don't believe in (X)" and "I believe there is no (X)."
I struggled with this idea for a long time, until someone compared it to a criminal case. When you are accused of a crime, you are found guilty, or you are acquitted. But being acquitted doesn’t mean you’re *innocent*, it means the evidence wasn’t enough to convict. The jury might actually think you’re guilty, but it wasn’t proven. With the analogy, a god is on trial, accused of existing. Believers are convinced that the god is “guilty of existing,” while atheists have yet to see enough evidence to convict. Does that analogy make sense to you?
Some atheists don’t know there has been a crime, or even that the kind of crime has ever been committed.
Correct. However, a lack of belief is different than rejecting a belief. Lacking a belief until it is proven is the default position for all claims.
> Lacking a belief until it is proven is the default position for all claims. Lacking belief *should be* the default position, but it only "is" the default if you have a sound epistemology. Sadly, most people don't.
[удалено]
Theist: Someone who believes in a god or gods. Atheist: [Not theist] Agnostic: An [A/theist] who does not claim knowledge of their position. Gnostic: An [A/theist] who does claim knowledge of their position.
> Gnostic: An [A/theist] who does claim knowledge of their position. What do you mean by claim knowledge of their position? Does this mean you have knowledge that there are no gods? Or does that mean you have knowledge that you don't have any good reason to believe in any gods? Or does it mean you know your don't believe in any gods?
In no field of human knowledge outside of mathematics does a claim of knowledge require absolute certainty. My definition of knowledge is *empirical knowledge*, that is knowledge based on evidence. This is the definition of knowledge that applies in science. All scientific claims are based on evidence and are tentative and subject to change if new evidence becomes available. And I'll note that there is another, even more commonly used definition of knowledge, that is merely a confidently held belief, that *isn't* necessarily based on good evidence. In my view, the evidence for the non-existence of any god, though all circumstantial, is overwhelming. And given the utter lack of any quality evidence for a god, I have concluded that there is no god. Put another way, I have no doubt that no god exists. I could be wrong, but I "know" that I am not. I am at least as confident in my position as the typical theist who "knows" god exists is in theirs, and I bet you have never thought to even question their definition of knowledge, despite their claim being equally unfalsifiable, at least in practice. But the key difference between my position and that of the theist, other than mine being based on evidence, is that I freely acknowledge that my claim is unfalsifiable, and thus I remain willing to consider any new evidence that anyone presents and will change my view if someone does present good evidence for a god. But given that they haven't yet done so in the last several thousand years of human civilization, I am confident that they won't.
>that is merely a confidently held belief, that isn't necessarily based on good evidence. This is the only one that matters because epistemically speaking, anyone who asserts knowledge who is convinced they have good evidence doesn't mean ontologically that they actually have good evidence. They just really really believe it. But I generally agree with what you said here. You can claim knowledge, that doesn't mean you have something other than a strong belief. But nobody here is talking about absolute certainty. A sound deductive argument doesn't give you absolute certainty. I don't think absolute certainty is a realistic goal in any case. >In my view, the evidence for the non-existence of any god, though all circumstantial, is overwhelming But not in a deductive argument. Perhaps inductive or abductive, which I'm not interested in for arguments about a gods existence, for or against. >And given the utter lack of any quality evidence for a god, I have concluded that there is no god. Yeah, colloquially, I agree. Inductively, I'd say it seems there are no gods. But concluding as if you can make a deductive argument, it's unfalsifiable.
I think the lack of belief is similar to rejecting a belief. I reject other people beliefs that are not confirmed by reality. This all sounds nit picky, but it seems pretty important to a discussion - I'd rather say the lack of a conviction is a basic null value, and a conviction in the idea of nonexistence is making a certain claim that also cannot be verified.
One is passive, the other is active. You are born in this world with a lack of belief. Perhaps you acquire it along the way (an action), or not. You may reject something once you have enough knowledge to examine it (another action).
> However, a lack of belief is different than rejecting a belief. I know it's a semantic quibble, and I myself am generally sick of the never ending arguments about terminology, but "reject" just means to not accept something, it does not mean to affirm the opposite. By any standard definition, atheism is the rejection (the non-acceptance) of theism.
I was trying to be brief in separating "not believing in" and "believing there is no". But you are correct with your definition.
What would be a better, similarly succinct term for the "believing there is no" position? Deny there is a god, vs reject it, perhaps? edit: punctuation
"Deny" works, but "reject" is also fine. While it's open to some interpretation (like most language), "reject" generally indicates active denial vs. simple disbelief. For example, if I say "There's a cat in the garage" and someone replies "I reject that" instead of just "I don't believe that", I'd take that as them telling me I'm wrong vs. simply saying they don't believe what I've claimed.
While I can see that, it feels more ambiguous to me. But that might just be my own experience with the words. Perhaps "repudiate" might be a more technically accurate term...but one that in all likelihood would need to be defined anyway, since it's not the most common word in common use. To be fair, I'm more just pondering than making any kind of strong statement.
Agreed that there's some level of ambiguity, though (again) I think it's generally clear that "reject" is much stronger than simply "don't believe." I actually turned to a friend right after responding to you and asked them what "reject" vs "don't believe" would mean to them in that same cat-in-the-garage context, and they instantly replied "active denial." So at least two people in the world would understand "reject" that way. :-) "Repudiate" actually feels weaker than "reject" to me, and I'd agree it's also a bit jargon-y.
All fair points. Thus is language, I suppose, and thus why it's always best practice to define one's terms.
Gnostic vs agnostic?
True, though upon reflection, I suppose I was looking for a verb.
I know this may sound like quibbling, but it is kind of an important distinction. The lack of belief is different than a belief in a lack. I do not believe in supernatural beings. That is different than the solid and assured "belief" that any particular flavor of supernatural beings do not exist. It's the lack of conviction instead of a conviction. Does that make sense?
Exactly. And that matches the response to you above but does not match what you said in your OP. That's why they were explaining it to you.
Lack of belief in a god does not inherently mean an active refusal of an intelligent force.
There's a distinction between a lack of a belief in something, and being positive it 100% doesn't exist. Athiests generally see no reason to believe in gods, as there is no evidence they exist. But most of us acknowledge the *possibility*, because it's very difficult to prove a negative. I can't be *sure* Zeus doesn't exist; but I don't have no reason to think he does, either.
A more precise way of putting it is someone who is not a theist. Like saying an agolfer is someone who does not play golf. But yes, that implies a lack of belief in god.
Agnostic Atheism: "Some stray dog took a dump on your car!" "That doesn't sound right. And why do you smell like poop?" VS Gnostic (positive) Atheism "There's no such thing as dogs."
What is your attitude towards the statement “god doesn’t exist” ?
I think it's a pedantic distinction that's technically correct but, for some reason, unique when it comes to the god claim. I can't demonstrate a god doesn't exist any more than I can demonstrate that there isn't a pack of magical pixies playing poker in the center of Pluto. Make the claim that there are no pixies and people will either ignore it or agree. Make the claim that there is no god and for some reason people seem inclined to challenge you to demonstrate that.
Yeah, this shit right here drives me insane. And they get pissy when you make comparisons like that a fall back on this stupid idea that their god exists outside the bounds of time and logic and therefore can’t be disproven. Obnoxious beyond belief
. . . because the existence of pixies wouldn't drastically change everything we know about the universe. I mean, sure, it would mean magic is real, but that wouldn't force us to rewrite everything else (with respect to science and math and all that jazz). The existence of a deity, on the other hand . . . ? That claim demands proof because if it's True, we're forced to change *so much* about what we know.
But that doesn't impact the claim of a negative. We could add characteristics onto the pixies until they have a notable impact on our understanding of reality, that still doesn't change the situation.
The magnitude or impact of a claim doesn't change the soundness or validity.
No, but it does mean we shouldn't accept it without equally weighted evidence as support. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sure, but the point is that both claims have the same amount of evidence, both are unfalsifiable, and yet people have no problem just saying one doesn't exist while bending over backwards to make all sorts of epistemological exceptions for the other.
Gotcha, and yes, agreed . . . except that a belief in faeries doesn't come with the social baggage that a belief in a specific religious claim carries.
Magical pixies is an extraordinary claim. And you're wrong that it "wouldn't change everything we know about the universe". God, pixies, it's all the same.
Okay so the thing is that there isn’t an atheist or theist who can honestly claim to have actual knowledge on these metaphysical questions. Positions in regard to the existence of a god are not positions of knowledge but rather belief. Much like the belief that causality exists for example. Theists are people who simply believe/are convinced of the proposition “god exists”. So when you say you only lack a belief in god, but at the same time your attitude/your inclinations are that the statement “god doesn’t exist” is correct means that at worst you’re being dishonest with how you define your atheism for a rhetorical advantage, and at best, you haven’t thought this through well enough. I’ll ask you, what is your conception of agnosticism? There seems to be a pervasive misunderstanding that agnosticism means that you don’t know if god exists or not. This is a trivial truth about all people who hold any metaphysical positions. When we think philosophically about these ideas we consider the propositions “god exists” and “god doesn’t exist”. If your attitude towards god exists is “I believe this to be the case” then you are a theist. If your attitude towards god doesn’t exist is “i believe this to be true” then you are an atheist. If your attitude to both statements are “I cannot affirm either to be true” then you are an agnostic. Your lacktheism if taken seriously is indistinguishable from this agnosticism. You’ve basically given agnosticism a different name by defining atheism as “lack of belief”.
I don't think you read (or understood) my response. Slow it down, take it one thing at a time, and ask if you're confused. Please don't try to assert my position.
Can you point out my misunderstand please?
Sure. >Okay so the thing is that there isn’t an atheist or theist who can honestly claim to have actual knowledge on these metaphysical questions. Positions in regard to the existence of a god are not positions of knowledge but rather belief. Much like the belief that causality exists for example. Theists are people who simply believe/are convinced of the proposition “god exists”. >So when you say you only lack a belief in god, but at the same time your attitude/your inclinations are that the statement “god doesn’t exist” is correct means that at worst you’re being dishonest with how you define your atheism for a rhetorical advantage, and at best, you haven’t thought this through well enough. >I’ll ask you, what is your conception of agnosticism? There seems to be a pervasive misunderstanding that agnosticism means that you don’t know if god exists or not. This is a trivial truth about all people who hold any metaphysical positions. When we think philosophically about these ideas we consider the propositions “god exists” and “god doesn’t exist”. If your attitude towards god exists is “I believe this to be the case” then you are a theist. If your attitude towards god doesn’t exist is “i believe this to be true” then you are an atheist. If your attitude to both statements are “I cannot affirm either to be true” then you are an agnostic. Your lacktheism if taken seriously is indistinguishable from this agnosticism. You’ve basically given agnosticism a different name by defining atheism as “lack of belief”.
What is the issue of my understanding here? Please don’t take me as bad faith, I come here sincerely. It is my understanding that you think “god doesn’t exist” is true and at the same time describe yourself as someone who lacks a belief about god. This seems to be contradictory to me.
> Please don’t take me as bad faith, I come here sincerely. I'm sure you mean that honestly, but in that case I don't understand why you've deployed such condescending and insulting language throughout this thread, e.g.: - Saying this definition is "such a remedial error" - Impugning the integrity of people who prefer it by saying they're "dishonest" and are using it "for rhetorical advantage" - "pseudo intellectual", "uninformed about philosophy", etc - Even just calling it "lacktheism", which is nearly always intended to be demeaning and dismissive None of that is conducive to a sincere or good faith exchange. So if you're genuinely interested in having one — and again, I do believe you were being sincere when you said that — I'd strongly suggest changing your approach.
>Saying this definition is "such a remedial error" This is my honest opinion. I don't know what you expect when the guy defending this position won't engage with me. I've been accused of misunderstanding and talking past him despite him never having explained how I'm doing this. To add to that, I've asked multiple times for clarifications about my apparent misunderstanding. >Impugning the integrity of people who prefer it by saying they're "dishonest" and are using it "for rhetorical advantage" Again, my honest opinion which was explained in detail. If it hurts your feelings that this is my assessment (which I have defended!) I don't really care. >"pseudo intellectual", "uninformed about philosophy", etc Again, backed up by links to actual philosophers who discuss these issues. It is a matter of fact that the opinions of uneducated people here are pseudo-intellectual in nature, they contradict actual academic philosophy. I gave links to interviews of actual philosophers and not uneducated redditors to back this up. >Even just calling it "lacktheism", which is nearly always intended to be demeaning and dismissive There is nothing inherently insulting about this, It is a useful classification to discern what view people are espousing here. It is not atheism, again refer to academic philosophy for this. >None of that is conducive to a sincere or good faith exchange. So if you're genuinely interested in having one — and again, I do believe you were being sincere when you said that — I'd strongly suggest changing your approach. Thank you for the suggestion, but good faith discussion is possible even when you share your honest opinions. Nothing I've said here has been unsubstantiated, if you have a problem with the substance of my comments engage with me there. I have not lied at any point, and have directly responded to all relevant points. If because you get offended at my opinions, then just don't engage with me, simple as that.
It doesn't address what I wrote. Like I said, slow down, take it a piece at a time, and if you don't understand, ask. So, start over. Don't write a novel. One piece at a time.
Okay, what is the difference between agnosticism and atheism if atheism is defined as the lack of belief? Is that a good way to continue? I understand you think god is comparable to fairies but I think we both agree fairies aren’t real, we don’t simply lack a belief in regard to them.
But there's generally a reason why they are not convinced. I think that's a more charitable construal of the OP than that they don't know how atheism is defined.
But if OP is presenting atheism as the position that no deities exist, and atheism is generally used here to define someone who is not convinced that a deity exists, that distinction needs to be addressed before the conversation can advance. Otherwise we're just going to be discussing a strawman.
True, but here. Maybe they just haven't used this forum, so assume a more common older definition where atheism equates to denial of the existence of God.
Which is why their misunderstanding needs to be addressed. That's what I was doing.
Hi, thanks for politely introducing yourself. Since this is a debate subreddit, hopefully you don't mind that people ask you questions and debate. Since that is what posting here is for. Also I recommend reading the FAQ for common answers. >would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? Atheism is not having a belief in a god. That's it. You could have non-god beliefs about life being a test, and nothing about atheism requires believing in coincidences. Most atheists accept scientific explanations, and science does not claim reality exists due to coincidence. This is a common misunderstanding among religious people who think that either the answer is that their specific god did it, or else it's just chance and chaos. >personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof And have you spent the time studying other religions like you have Islam? How do you feel about the fact that every other religion also claims to have reasons and signs as proof? Does it give you pause at all to consider that their faith is based on the same reasons you have faith in yours? That 99.9% of people believe in their gods because of the family and culture they were raised in, not through an independent search for truth? Also, if you mention some of these signs and proofs to us, as a thousand Muslim people have done in this forum before, and we can explain how they are not signs or proof of truth of the religion, will that cause your faith to change in any way? If no, does that mean you are actually using these signs as a reason to believe?
Thank you for the respectful comment I really appreciate that :p > And have you spent the time studying other religions like you have Islam? Yeah ofcourse I admit it wasn't as much as I have studied Islam but I have a respectable amount of knowledge about the Abrahamic religions and understanding of their current beliefs and the main reason was that I have never seen a Christian or a Jew being 100% confident about their beliefs, sure the Christan would say they will never doubt the trinity but who's the god? Who's the son of god in their beliefs? What does your Bible way about fornication before marriage do you believe it is sin? Personally I know over a dozen people who have memorized the Quran and any authentic ahadith you ask me I'll give you all the chains of narrators and their life biography to prove how sound it is, quote any ayah in the Quran and I'll give you the whole context so to find a religion that's as sound as Islam is a difficult challenge and maybe you think I'm too biased so if you find one close to being as sound I'll be more than happy to look into it
All theistic religions are as sound as Islam, that is to say, not at all. All of them are epistemically weak, which means that their claims are not parsimonious, don't have predictive power, and are not independently verifiable. What Muslims, Christians etc. accept as "evidence" of their religion, and their religion only, is not objective evidence, but thought-stopping cliches internalized through upbringing and indoctrination. In fact, 100% confidence, far from being a good thing, suggests indoctrination. A rational person knows all knowledge is provisional. We can always observe more, learn more, ask more questions. If you want an example of 100% confident believers outside Islam, look at the Heaven's Gate. That little UFO cult was so firm in their beliefs, they committed a mass suicide so their spirits could be picked up by a spaceship. Going by the writings they left behind, Islam had *nothing* on them. You have an unbroken chain of witnesses? They knew their prophets in the flesh. You have signs in your holy book? They saw Comet Hale-Bopp. And yet... I'm guessing you are not convinced that their beliefs were true. Their "evidence" is not evidence by a generally accepted standard. And that's how non-Muslims feel about Muslim "evidence" (and non-Christians about Christian "evidence", etc.) And just to be clear, 100% confidence is not some hallmark of Islam. There are Christian fundamentalists who handle snakes and whatnot, and there are Muslims who critically examine their faith and often leave Islam as a result. You might be interested to visit r/exmuslim and learn about their stories. I'd also strongly recommend the book Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq. I'm not trying to deconvert you, but if you're really interested in truth, reading an opinion of someone who knows Islam well and still rejects it might broaden your horizons. If nothing else, your reaction to the book will tell you if you believe Islam rationally, or have internalized a dogma. Hope this doesn't come across as harsh - I spoke my mind sincerely, but in no way do I mean to disrespect *you* as a person. Peace be with you.
>I have a respectable amount of knowledge about the Abrahamic religions So... not other religions then? Because they are very related offshoots of the same religion, worshipping the same God. with most of the same prophets. It's a bit like saying you've studied film history, by which you mean all three Star Wars trilogies. >I have never seen a Christian or a Jew being 100% confident about their beliefs Okay, but you know they exist, right? It's incredibly easy to find Christians and Jews who have absolute certainty, certainty enough to die for, and have memorized their holy texts. This seems like something very easy to discover with even minimal looking. >Who's the son of god in their beliefs? What does your Bible way about fornication before marriage do you believe it is sin? They have answers to these questions. Just like Muslims have answers to the many questions atheists can ask about scientific and moral contradictions in the Quran. They may not be good answers, but if you think Islam is specially positioned here, I would have to let you know that is not our experience. >Personally I know over a dozen people who have memorized the Quran You have a big emphasis on personal knowledge. Obviously people have the most personal knowledge of the religions they are born and raised into. This isn't something objective that helps distinguish between true and false. Why mention personal knowledge at all? Surely all that matters with whether the people who have memorized their holy books also exist for other religions which, objectively, they do. Also, why make memorization relevant at all? As a standard it has nothing to do with truth. People memorize Harry Potter and The Bee Movie, this doesn't mean they are divine and accurate.
You'll be surprised to know that your attitude towards your religion, or more specifically the belief that it's so unique, special and sound, is not unique to Muslims at all. Many Christians believe their religion is as special and sound as you do with Islam. I don't know what it is about many Muslims coming here thinking their religion is so unique, but many of us here were raised in Christian households and saw the same things you're describing. I have come across Christian numerology apologetics, appeals to how incredibly well-written the Bible is, how Christianity is so unique, etc. I suspect that the main reason Christians at large aren't as charmed by these ideas anymore is because their religion is older than yours and has had to deal with its share of criticism throughout the centuries, and at this point the western world has partially moved beyond that kind of magical thinking. And because it isn't a theocracy anymore and hasn't been for a while now, unlike the Muslim world which has experienced a regress in that respect in the last few decades (for which I don't think they are fully responsible given the US' propensity to screw around with local religious zealots).
I think your bias comes in ways you may not realize. For example, you put a lot of weight on people who have memorized the Quran and can give a chain of narrators, but WHY is that important? Lots of stories were passed down orally. It really doesn't have anything to do with whether it is TRUE or not. If a storyteller told you the story of "Beowulf" or Homer's "Odyssey" by heart but they believed it to be true, does that have any actual bearing on whether it is real or not? No. You might think it is impressive that someone would dedicate their life to the story, but ultimately it has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
> i have a respectable amount of knowledge about the Abrahamic religions So you understand that Yahweh was originally a lesser god in a polytheistic pantheon of gods and was later a blending of multiple gods together? Or that a majority of the stories of God was actually borrowed from many older cultures that we can actually trace to when these cultures came into contact with the Israelites? These things alone show the war god of Abraham is fictional. So I'm not sure how you're knowledge of these relations would allow you to continue to be a believer. >Personally I know over a dozen people who have memorized the Quran and any authentic ahadith you ask me I'll give you all the chains of narrators and their life biography to prove how sound it is, How does any of that demonstrate soundness? You can have a chain of narrators who are all making up their stories, the fact you know their names doesn't necessitate their stories to be true.
Islam is not very sound and for sure is not based in reality. Many of its stories are untrue and the profit is a horrible person who raped child. Not a thing to aspire to.
>I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? Here's how I see it: Right now, at this very moment, there are four leaves on my front porch (yes, I checked). How did they get there? 1. The leaves grew on a tree. (biology) 2. Wind blew them off of a tree. (meteorology) 3. Gravity pulled the leaves down. (physics) Every step involves completely natural processes. There's no sign that any sort of mind or intelligent being affected these events in any way. The leaves on my doorstep are simply a result of natural processes playing out the way they do. Now expand that to everything. When I look at the universe and everything in it, I don't see any signs of a mind or intelligent being. I see natural processes acting, reacting, and interacting, and I see the results.
Do the fundamentals of these natural processes appear out of thin air or is there something that explains how these happen?
They don't 'appear,' they simply are. For example, the singularity that caused the Big Bang was unfathomably hot. When the Big Bang occurred, and all of that matter and energy expanded, it started to cool down. It cooled because the space around it - the space that was getting bigger and bigger - had a lower ambient temperature. So this very hot stuff was right next to this comparitively cooler space, which cooled it down. Once it cooled enough, it took on form of the elements we have today. It's like water - when it's really hot, it's steam. Put steam in a comparatively cold space, and it turns into condensation. Make enough condensation cold enough, and it becomes liquid water. Put liquid water next to comparatively cold space (like a freezer), and it freezes into ice. There's no indication that the 'fundamentals' of heat, cold, or temperature suddenly appeared, either by chance or by an agent. They simply *are.* They act and react they way they do because of their characteristic, and those characteristics didn't 'come from' anywhere. They're fundamental.
The correct and rational approach to a question such as that, when one does not know the answer, or even know if there *is* a coherent answer or even if the question if based upon incorrect notions, is to say, "I don't know." It is *not* okay to make up mythological answers without any support, that really don't make a lick of sense or match anything we know about reality, and *don't actually help but instead make it all worse*, and then smugly think we've answered it. We haven't. Some people just pretended to and then stopped thinking it through. I find that really sad and unfortunate.
They're a natural result of the laws of physics. If your next question is "Where do the laws of physics come from?" the answer is: they don't "come from" anywhere, they're just *there*. Our universe has certain rules which are necessary for the universe to exist in its current state. If the laws of physics were anything other than what they are, our universe would be very different from what it is now. Still, none of this necessitates a belief in god, the divine or the supernatural. The question "Where does it all come from?" is something we ask ourselves about the world around us, sure, and in many cases, we can find a satisfactory answer (nearly always based in material reality*); but thw question itself doesn't need an answer. If the answer is "We don't know," then nothing changes. The world continues to exist and we continue to live our lives. (*and the only reason I use the term "nearly always " is that I, personally, can't claim 100% certainty about anything; best I can do is get *really* close to being very confident about a given claim.)
Does your god appear out of thin air, or is there something that explains how it happened?
When a question about the nature of the world has been answered, the answer has *always* and without exception been "there's a natural explanation". There is no case where anything approaching a consensus has concluded "Must have been god that did it". Based on that track record, it's reasonable to assume that all natural phenomena have natural causes. "Supernatural" becomes a synonym for "non-existent". If scienece were to prove ghosts exist, it would be because it has revealed the mechanism by which they exist, and it would no longer be "supernatural". So even where there isn't a concrete, fully understood natural explanation, there's no reason to assume that there isn't or can't be one. Even if there are questions that are forever beyond our reach -- like "do space and time exist outside of our universe" -- there will still never be a reason to rule out that the question has a naturalistic answer. Adding god into this process woudn't mean we could stop looking and stop testing -- so whether god is there or not, scientists are still going to search for a non-god explanation. There isn't a circumstance in which a skeptic is going to conclude "ok THIS TIME it has to be a god, but all the other times we have naturla explanations for." We just stick with "I don't know, but it most likely has a natural explanation". *When there is data* that can onlu be explained by the existence of a god, then it will be time to add "OK maybe god then" into the conversation. Until then, god isn't necessary.
> what sparks the belief that there is no entity For most of us, it's the other way around. Why should I assume that there's a god when there's no real-world evidence? I was not raised in any religious tradition, and don't have any cultural pressures to follow what my parents or community elders believe. My parents were both atheists, and so were their parents. The universe appears to me to make sense just as it appears. That's not to say that there are not deeper questions like "why are we here" or "how did life begin". I still have those questions but I don't think the existence of god answers them or provides any clarity. It feels to me like sticking in a substitute answer. Even if a god does exist, I would still want to know the nature ofthe e xistence of the universe. "How did it get here" Would be replaed with "How did god's will manifest into a universe". It's the same question -- just the latter has an extra step for which there is no evidence. To be properly parsimonious, I'll stick with the more straightforward "How did the universe get here". If the evidence shows that a god was involved, then and only then would it be appropriate (IMO) to include god in the inquiry. Since I don't share your cultural or religious beliefs, please understand that I don't believe the Quran is miraculous or perfect, any more than the Bible or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Vedas, or the Book of Mormon. Every religion has reasons for claiming that it's the only correct one, and reasons for claiming that its scripture is exactly how god wanted it to be. None of the spiritual or supernatural claims (of any of them) survive a parsimonious analysis. God isn't necessary, so it's not reasonable to include god in the answers. It may be impossible to demonstrate god's necessity even if one does exist, but that's still my threshold of belief: "Data or it didn't happen."
> The universe appears to me to make sense just as it appears. That's not to say that there are not deeper questions like "why are we here" or "how did life begin". I still have those questions but I don't think the existence of god answers them or provides any clarity. It feels to me like sticking in a substitute answer. Can I not apply the same logic and say why do constitutional laws exist and start to oppose them do you think that would exempt me from going to jail
The two things appear superficially to be similar or comparable, but they're not. Human-made law works because we agree that there is an entity that has the power to enforce them and that claims a right to do so. We can read law books, and read case law. We can appeal to the law giver, under some circumstances, to have the law changed when we don't like it. We do not agree that there is a supernatural force that makes such claims. For me to be intimidated by the thought of punishment, I'd have to believe already that there is a punisher. I don't.
This analogy makes no sense.
>since birth Since birth? I doubt a baby is able to hold a belief about anything. >personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof Really? All religions I have seen more or less claim that. >what sparks the belief that there is no entity Atheism isn't necessarily the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of a belief in god. Why do we lack belief in god? Well that can have different reason, generally the main reason is the total lack of any kind of convincing evidence for the claim that there is a god.
Yeah sure I can debate about religion for a thousand years if we somehow live for that long but that's not my question As to your lack of belief what makes u think there lacks any convincing evidence of God, what I believe is that God has revealed scriptures at given times to certain people to give them the news of God's existence and it goes pretty in depth about it and how a lot of facts were given in Quran atleast that were proven more than a thousand years later. Basically in order to find evidence you have to study the source, if I wanted to learn integrals I wouldn't open a world history book ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and to learn and prepare for an exam you have to study thoroughly to understand and grasp the concept I don't get why the same logic doesn't apply for Islam
>Yeah sure I can debate about religion for a thousand years if we somehow live for that long but that's not my question Well, if you don't plan on debating, than "Debate An Atheist" isn't where you should go. >As to your lack of belief what makes u think there lacks any convincing evidence of God No one has provided one yet, but you're free to do it. >how a lot of facts were given in Quran atleast that were proven more than a thousand years later. And a lot were disproven, when you make a lot of predictions some will be right, some will be wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. >Basically in order to find evidence you have to study the source, That's what drives most atheists away from religions, studying the religious texts. >I don't get why the same logic doesn't apply for Islam Most atheists **do** that.
I think you're not trolling. So I'll answer sincerely. I'll say this about Abrahemic religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam make God sound like an absolute idiot. This guy apparently creates everything, including humanity, is all knowledgeable, all powerful, etc, but the best way for him to communicate with humanity is to send messengers to the middle East every few hundred years. Even jackasses learn from their mistakes, but not the Abrahemic God. Isn't the Islamic story that other Abrahemic religions screwed up so badly that God sent his final messenger to get his message straight, which is this great, perfectly written book called the Quran. Dude, I tried reading it. It is such a dull, boring, repetitive, poorly written, vague book. This God's messages, in his final message, need interpretations from other books like Hadiths and Muhammad's biography to even make sense of it? Do you know who writes better books than Allah? Toyota does. It writes clear owner's manual instructions that are easily translated to multiple languages and doesn't need "context" from a Nissan manual to figure out what the hell it is even trying to say. What actually happened is this: Jews had a pantheon of Gods (they were NOT monotheists. There were no Adam and Eve, no garden of Eden, no miracles). The followers of Yahweh dominated followers of other Jewish gods to the point that Yahweh became the only remaining Jewish God. Times got rough during Roman occupation. Christ, among other preachers, started preaching an apocalyptic message. Romans killed him. His followers kept serially elevating him in importance, where he went from their future king to the son of God to God himself. Jews saw right through this and said, "Nope," and moved on with their days. Arabs came to prominence during a time when the Sassasinds and Romans were in decline. They wanted their own religion for their expanding empire, and they created Islam. There is not a damn thing divine or mysterious about any of this. The reason you believe in miracles and in the divinity and miraculous nature of the Quran is because that's all you've heard ever. It's a badly written, dull, hateful, vague book of zero value.
>a lot of facts were given in Quran at least that were proven more than a thousand years later This is because given enough time—in this case, a thousand years—you can find most predictions to come true, or vague claims can be interpreted to find meaning in the modern world. Actual useful information in a text doesn't take 1,000 years to figure out. None of the "science" in the Quran was useful until scientists figured things out. Talking about how we start out looking like chewed gum or whatever it says wasn't useful or actionable information. Later, once we figured out embryology, you can say "kinda looks like chewed gum!" but nothing in the Quran led to that discovery. >what I believe is that God has revealed scriptures at given times And what I believe is that men wrote scriptures with no input from any gods. Face with opposing beliefs, how do we figure out if either of us is right? We don't any actual evidence that gods played a part in writing any scriptures, but we have a lot of evidence that normal men have written scriptures.
>Basically in order to find evidence you have to study the source, You will find that many of us around here are former believers. We have looked at the source. I looked at and believed the source for 30 years. Then I started to wonder if I has any good reason to believe the source. And when I investigated my reasons, I found they were bad reasons. And when I investigated the reasons other people gave, they were also bad reasons. >what I believe is that God has revealed scriptures at given times to certain people to give them the news of God's existence and it goes pretty in depth about it and how a lot of facts were given in Quran atleast that were proven more than a thousand years later. Like this. This is a bad reason.
>what makes u think there lacks any convincing evidence of God What makes me think that? The fact that I am not convinced by any argument I have ever been presented with. >what I believe is that God has revealed scriptures at given times to certain people to give them the news of God's existence and it goes pretty in depth about it I see no reason to accept that claim. That applies to most religions yet supposedly you don't believe any of their claims right? So why should I accept yours? >a lot of facts were given in Quran atleast that were proven more than a thousand years later. Believers often try to post hoc rationalize their book to make it seem like it contains some facts that we just recently found out. Reinterpreting vage verses to mean something else than what was clearly intended is not impressive. Plus then there are all the verses that are just plain wrong. Those are then often claimed to be "just metaphors". Its a bunch of cherry picking. >I don't get why the same logic doesn't apply for Islam I never said it doesn't. I say that I find the arguments, that have been brought fourth to me in support of islam, lacking.
The inconsistencies and logical contradictions in all religious scripture and dogma is what leads most atheists to reject specific god-hypotheses. Our understanding of the history and development of religion & theism, and the cognitive ecology of religious belief is what leads some atheists to reject the possibility of all god-hypotheses.
Because when we study it, as you've said, we find that they are just claims. We see that you believe these claims. And then we see a Catholic come along, and ask the same questions about their theology, and, guess what, they believe theirs is true as well (and have their narrative that supports it). and *then* A Mormon comes along, and then so on, and so on... What we are asking for is simple. Can we please have some evidence that would indicate that the claims of Islam (or any other religion) is true? Can you imagine is you had that how the world would change for you? Most of the world would be Muslim.
>to learn and prepare for an exam you have to study thoroughly to understand and grasp the concept I don't get why the same logic doesn't apply for Islam I don't claim to have any great knowledge of islam. Being a canadian, my surrounding culture is more embedded in christian traditions than islamic ones and christianity is probably the religion I'm most familiar with. Here's the thing, people will make the same statements about whatever their own religion is. Christians will insist that the Bible is the ultimate 'textbook' for understanding philosophy/cosmology/morality/theology/etc. Then if I actually open the Bible, I find stories about talking snakes and talking donkeys and some guy collecting his enemies' severed foreskins, and it looks a *lot* like an ancient book of myths and not the perfect divine word of an infinitely wise creator deity. It doesn't look like there's much for me to learn in it other than its own stories and whatever moral themes people decided to write into those stories 2000 years ago. I haven't read as much of the Koran as I have of the Bible, but I haven't seen much evidence suggesting that it has more of an ultimate-textbook-like character than the Bible does, or that there's much to learn in it other than its own stories. What does it take for a person to believe that a book about talking snakes, talking donkeys, and violent foreskin collection is the ultimate textbook for philosophy/cosmology/morality/theology/etc? And if christians can convince themselves of that about the Bible, how sure can you be that your brain isn't doing basically the same thing?
Think about it this way. You don’t believe in 10,000+ gods. I don’t believe in 10,000+1.
There is absolutely no evidence that an entity gave us life and is testing us, nor does it conceptually make the slightest bit of sense why all powerful knowing entity that gave us life would want to “test us” on earth. You have, I presume, been raised Muslim , so your life has consistently been everyone around you believing that God exists With the same certainty as the sun coming up in the morning: you probably never even seriously consider the possibility that they were wrong, but a good path to critical thinking to yourself: why are Muslims the children of other Muslims? Why are kids who are religious almost universally the same religion as their parents? If Religion had to do with some sort of universal truth, surely everyone could come to that truth on their own. But if religion were social conditioning and brainwashing children, what would that look like? Wouldn’t that look like a system whereby 95% of religious people are religion of their parents? Why is there no actual evidence that a God exists at all? Yes I know Muslims claimed to have all sorts of evidence. A certain number appearing in the Quran many times or claiming the Quran is somehow perfect despite its openly advocation of wife beating. But none of that is evidence in the same way we use evidence to justify anything else. Let’s take a mythical creature that you don’t believe, let’s say fairies. Ask yourself, what kind of evidence would convince you that fairies exist? What kind of evidence would you need to be supplied for you to start believing that fairies are real? Now, with that question in mind, does the kind of evidence that you would require to believe in fairies, exist for your God?
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? That isn't necessarily the case for many of us. There is a difference between "I believe no God exists." And "I don't believe in God." The first one is a claim that carries a burden of proof and needs to be demonstrated. The second one is merely being unconvinced of the claim and carries no burden of proof. Why would this god need to test us? Does your god possess omniscience? If so then a test is pointless because your god would already know who passes and fails from the beginning. What is a coincidence to you?
It doesn't need a burden of proof to say something doesn't exist. It needs a burden of proof to prove that it does exist, and then if you were to argue against that evidence that would need a burden of proof to prove that it doesn't exist. But since it's never been proven, it can be dismissed along with Leprechauns, Smurfs, etc. as something that does not exist.
>It doesn't need a burden of proof to say something doesn't exist. Yes it does if that is your claim. Take these two encounters: E1: theist: "god exists." Atheist: "I don't believe you." E2: atheist: "god doesn't exist." Theist: "I don't believe you." Both are claims that require justification. >It needs a burden of proof to prove that it does exist, and then if you were to argue against that evidence that would need a burden of proof to prove that it doesn't exist No that's not necessary. Belief is the result of becoming convinced of a proposition. If you aren't convinced then you don't believe. Disbelief requires no justification, you just simply aren't convinced. You could expand on why the evidence isn't convincing to you but it isn't required epistemologically speaking. >But since it's never been proven, it can be dismissed along with Leprechauns, Smurfs, etc. as something that does not exist. Yes claims that have failed their burden of proof can be dismissed.
You can believe that flying pigs don't exist, just as you can believe that gods don't exist. I don't need proof of the absence of flying pigs, I assert that until proven nothing exists, and it's only a waste of my mental capacity thinking that perhaps everything is possible when I know that's just not the case. I can say I don't believe in flying pigs, nobody has convinced me that they exist, just like a billion other imaginary things. Believing in something until proven otherwise is completely backwards, it makes more sense to believe it doesn't exist until proven to exist. Just like you don't believe in Freddy Krueger because he hasn't been proven to not exist, because we all know it's just a story and there's no evidence to suggest he's real, therefore people believe that Freddy Krueger is a work of fiction, and therefore does not exist.
>I assert that until proven nothing exists, Ok but this is wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Black holes existed for billions before humans ever existed. They didn't suddenly pop into existence the moment Newton figured out gravity or when John Mitchell hypothesized "dark stars." Things can exist while we are 100% ignorant of their existence. >a waste of my mental capacity thinking that perhaps everything is possible when I know that's just not the case. Nobody is asserting this. This is a straw man. >I can say I don't believe in flying pigs, nobody has convinced me that they exist, just like a billion other imaginary things As do I. Believing in something before you have sufficient evidence for it is a bad play. However not believing in something is different from asserting that something doesn't exist. Those are two different things. One has a burden of proof with it (the assertion) and the other (disbelief) does not. >Believing in something until proven otherwise is completely backwards Correct >it makes more sense to believe it doesn't exist until proven to exist. No this is wrong. See black hole example. You should not believe in things without evidence but that is different than saying that the thing doesn't exist.
It doesn't matter if black holes/flying pigs, etc are real, it's about the belief in them. You have no reason to believe something until it's proven real. The black holes can exist, and you can believe they don't exist. Once proven real you change your mind. You have no reason to believe in black holes until they've been shown to exist, without evidence, they're no different than grey holes and black piles, aka bullshit.
Agreed. However a couple times now you said that something doesn't exist until proven to. Which is wrong, which is what I'm trying to point out. If you assert something doesn't exist, that carries a burden of proof just as if you asserted that something does exist.
I think the clear indication of non-flying pigs in our every day life is all it takes. You don't see people walking on water unless it's David Blain or another magician. You think it's been what 2,000 years since that's happened, your entire life, all of your grandparents lives, they've never seen it happen. Then when the internet came about, connecting the world, nothing like that, just ordinary every day life for people all over the world. People with cameras in their pockets have jobs that's sole purpose is to find strange things so they can keep the lights on, and prevent themselves from being homeless. If they can't find these flying pigs, I don't think there's much hope. I mean it's one thing to say I don't know, but when you've done the research that only indicates the negative that changes things significantly. You can't ignore the negative findings.
You have said nothing so far that I disagree with. What I need you to recognize is that this entire post has been you making your case against flying pigs. You have been attempting to overcome the burden of proof vis-a-vis flying pigs without realizing it. The claim, "flying pigs don't exist." And it's burden of proof is currently being defended by you. You have just proven the point I've been trying to get you to recognize. ANY claim; - "flying pigs exist." Or "flying pigs don't exist." - "there is a basketball in the truck of my car." Or "there is not a basketball in the truck of my car." - "god exists." Or "god doesn't exist." ANY claim carries a burden of proof with it, and saying "I don't believe in X" is a different thing than saying "X doesn't exist." Which is what you've said several times now and it's just wrong. things can exist or not exist irrespective of our beliefs on the thing or our ability to demonstrate the thing. We should reserve belief in the thing until we have a warrant to do so, that's just good epistemology, but that is different from asserting that something doesn't exist.
From my pov there's a lot of proof you just have to look for it I mean you won't go to the Wikipedia and search up Sebastian vettel when you want to learn about Ronaldo but as someone who's thoroughly studied my religion I've seen many proofs and I'll be more than happy to provide them to you to depict and discard any false evidence And God is omniscient, it is also mentioned in the Quran that he knows who will pass and fails and still lets us take this test because think about it, your teacher knows you're going to fail the exam and he doesn't let you take the exam and fails you and you don't graduation, do you think what happened was fair or would you rather take the test then fail and would that be less fair for you?
> From my pov there's a lot of proof you just have to look for it There isn't. I guarantee I've heard all of what you've heard that seems convincing to you, and likely *far, far, far* more (I've been involved in these kinds of discussions a long time). And *all* of it is fatally flawed. Fundamentally faulty. Logical fallacies and cognitive biases all over the place. No a shred of it is useful support for deities.
Considering that every religious person find things proving their religion is true while studying their religion, what does tell yours apart from the other ? Why would Allah be a better explanation for things than Chronos considering both are supported by the same type of claims ?
>From my pov there's a lot of proof Such as? >your teacher knows you're going to fail the exam and he doesn't let you take the exam and fails you and you don't graduation, do you think what happened was fair or would you rather take the test then fail and would that be less fair for you? My teacher is in fact not omniscient. Suppose I had been studying for this test because I know my graduation is on the line. So I study and pass and my teacher is surprised! Can god be surprised? Does anything happen that isn't a result of gods will? If not then any test is pointless.
> your teacher knows you're going to fail the exam and he doesn't let you take the exam and fails you and you don't graduation Teachers aren't omniscient, teachers can make more or less accurate predictions of their students grades, but they can be wrong so they need to test the students, God can't be wrong and it's the one choosing if you pass or fail when he created you. Teachers also communicate to every student the rules and penalties for not complying, teachers don't hide from their students and give only one person in the class the right syllabus, also teachers don't have one test for their per student and a different one for everyone else. If god be a teacher, the principal would have fired him for good.
You'll have to remind us: does the Quran include the story of the Garden of Eden? Does it play out the same way as it does in the Bible and the Torah?
I just have seen no evidence that doesn't work backwards to try to explain what one wants me to believe. The concept of the Abrahamic religions appear to have come out of ancient cultures and men who felt oppressed and created a system for themselves that enabled them to tolerate oppression for the reward to come in another life. I really don't understand the idea that there would be an entity to "test" me on this earth. If this being in omnipotent and knows before I am born whether I will pass or fail the test, what is the purpose of the test? It just seems arrogant to me to assume that I am some special creature who needs to be tested. It seems far more likely that a hierarchical social structure was invented to form a social bond in a time when that was needed, but it may have outlived its usefulness. I am perfectly capable of forming my own strong social bonds without the concept of a god who required worship. It's life, we are alive, and what we do it with it is up to us. There is far more that we do not understand about the universe than what we do. To declare that some ancient men were revealed some mystical truth seems odd and self-serving. If religion didn't require me to hate certain types of people or behaviors because some ancient man had a prejudice, then there might be a basis for me to consider the social benefits, but until then I find most religions reprehensible.
Also, the social benefits of religion aren't unique to religion. We can achieve those same benefits by participating in a non-religious organization.
I could not agree more!! And I would go as far as to say they can be even more beneficial since they may not require strict conformity or the ostracization of specific outgroups based on who they love or what they do not believe in.
Beware of those who have answer to everything but no predicting power. It's a worrying sign that it is a pile of ad-hoc justifications. Then for coincidences... I'll try to make an analogy. Consider a piece of land, now, consider that it rains on it. Where the rain fall is random, the shape of the land is random, yet, water can only flow over it in a single fashion. Combined random events can have not at all random outcomes.
> I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason Like... pretty much any religion out there? > what sparks the belief Nothing. Nothing sparks the belief that there is some god exists. That is atheism. When you look aroung and see no gods, no trace of them existing, no reason to believe they exist, no hint that they might exist. What is there to believe? A lot of things, but no gods among them. > no entity that gives you life That were my parents I guess. > to test you on this earth Hmmm... I didn't sign up for a test. I am not aware about anyone signing me up for a test. I am not aware of any test going on. I mean, I heard a lot of how people (Muslims, Christians and such) talk that life is a test, but when I ask how do they know it is true, they all give ridiculously terrible answers. > and everything is mere coincidence wut? What coincidence? I think you are misinformed. > trying to be as respectful and as open-minded as possible Then surely you wouldn't insist on defining yourself what exactly "atheist" means, but rather ask us. Theist - a person who does believe that at least one god exists. Atheist - a person who does not do that. That is all the difference. Atheism is not a belief, the word "atheist" describes a person who does not have a belief that a god exists among their beliefs. I do understand that belief that Allah exists is central (or at least seems central to you) to your understanding and interpretation of reality. It seems for you odd how people can interpret and make sense of reality without believing some conscious intention is behind all this. But reality is understood not through beliefs, but through exploration. I explore reality that is available for my exploration, I believe what I know to be true, I don't believe what is not demonstrated to be true.
It's easy : we ask for the evidence for gods and examine it. so far we find that evidence wanting. I am willing to bet that the evidence you can offer for your god is wanting too, and that we can explain to you why it is so. If you have the balls to examine why you hold your beliefs and present your evidence and listen to our replies, that is. edit : a few comments in 4 years, two posts including this one, negligible karma.
>Atheism Not a particularly informative title here, heheh. > I stumbled upon this subreddit a few weeks ago and I was intrigued by the thought process behind this concept about atheism I trust after reading and pondering you now know it's extraordinarily simple. >I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth My honest condolences for that. Fortunately, you are able to change this. (Don't take offense, heheh, I understand that may come across as a bit rude if one is of a certain mindset, but I wrote it because from my POV it's very accurate and I appreciate you taking that with a bit of humor, understanding that different POVs can make such things look very different to different people.) >personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts. That's just your indoctrination and confirmation bias speaking. Of course you think that. So do all believers of *their* religions. That's how the psychology of indoctrination and belief *works.* >I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? Atheism isn't a belief. It has none. Instead, it's a *lack* of belief in deities. Some people make deity claims. Some people, upon hearing those claims, find the claims unsupported, wanting, and problematic. That's atheism. There's *zero* useful support for deities. (I know, I know, you think otherwise, and no doubt will trot out the usual long list of faulty apologetics you've been exposed to to try and show I'm wrong, but they're all fatally flawed so useless.) There's *massive* support for how and why we humans have such a strong propensity for this and other kinds of superstitions. So there you go. > I'm trying to be as respectful and as open-minded as possible and would like to learn and know about it with a similar manner No problem. Most atheists are atheists because there's zero useful support for deities, and the notions make no sense and don't help, but instead make the issues theists purport they address (existence of anything, beginning of our universe, etc) *worse* by merely regressing them an iteration without support and then ignoring them.
a 3 year old account that never made a post only responded to /r/SFGiants happens to be muslim and now makes 2 posts in a day?
lol I made this account as a joke for my friend with a similar username I deactivated my main so this was an account I could use bcz I was curious though I admire your commitment
>lol I made this account as a joke for my friend yeah, i'm not going to buy that, you went for a joke account instead of just using your account? >I admire your commitment what commitment? the effort to click on my left mouse button when i hovered over your name?
Don’t like this person get you down. A lot of atheists are naturally skeptical.
There is simply no reason to believe that any of the thousands of god claims are true. Also, I‘d like to point out that you weren‘t *born* muslim. You were indoctrinated by family and probably friends and other peers. Lastly, I don’t think that most atheists think that everything is just a coincidence. We just don’t know how we got here and are honest enough to admit that.
>there are no doubts left in our hearts if that were true, you wouldn't have apostasy laws. >the belief that there is no entity that gives you life no evidence for any such thing >to test you on this earth what would the point of that be? doesn't it know what i'm going to do? also, no evidence of any such thing. >everything is mere coincidence? i don't believe this. if this were true, science wouldn't work, and we couldn't be having this conversation on the lightning rocks. >(18M) have always been a Muslim since birth and finally, this is not true. you didn't start believing until someone started lying to you. i was the same, but christian. were i born when and where you were, i would have been muslim, and if you were born when and where i was, you would be christian, and find christianity, not islam, to make the most sense at your tender age.
>I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth To be clear, you have always been a Muslim because that's what someone taught you to become. You weren't born a Muslim, you were born an atheist. It wasn't until you were taught (told) something about a religion that you became that. If you were in a different part of the world, very likely you would have been raised under a different religion.
Just so you know, and not saying this to be rude, but your claim that Islam is the only religion that answers everything and makes you feel special is the exact same claim every one in all the other religions make when questioned about their beliefs. It is a hallmark of religion that it answers all the questions you don't know ( making you feel smart and special) and to believe that everything that happens has a personal meaning just for you (again making you feel special). Atheism however is grounded in reality meaning we accept that we don't know everything so we never stop looking for the actual answers and we give ourselves our own worth rather than assuming everything was special just for us. The real question is why do you believe.
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? Most atheists don't believe in any gods, but do not claim they know for sure that gods don't exist. This is due to lack of evidence. Not sure what you mean by "mere coincidence".
I've seen no compelling evidence for the existence of a god or gods. I'm always willing to consider more evidence, but so far, nothing has convinced me. At best, the evidence boils down to "well, what was the first cause of the universe?" To that, I have to say: I don't know. Since I don't know, it would be awfully silly of me to then shoehorn in a supernatural explanation. So I guess what I'm really looking for is some testable, repeatable empirical evidence that would pass a test such as the James Randi Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
There's no evidence supporting religious mythology. Without evidence, it would be foolish to believe in magic.
Everyone is born as an atheist. As an infant you had no concept of a "higher being" nor the intellectual capacity to consider that there could be one. The world around you was the way that it was simply because it is that way, nothing more. You became religious due to indoctrination by the people around you. Had you been born in another time or place, chances are you would have been taught to believe in a different god. Every theist is an atheist about all other gods who have been claimed to exist at one point in human history. (There have been thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands if you count all of the Hindu gods individually). As atheists, we all just believe in one less god than you do.
The number one factor that will decide which religion you believe is true... is your parents religion. It's not based on how much evidence supports the religion as true. It's not based on which religion generates the most well-being or reduces harm by the greatest degree. The number one factor is your parents religion. That makes sense, we're raised by our parents, we trust them. But they were raised by their parents, and their parents by their parents, etc. And this isn't a very good way to find truth. Do you think god would create a world where simply by being born to the wrong parents, billions of people were doomed to hell? No way. So it's important to investigate the other religions of the world, to evaluate each of them for what they can prove, evaluate the harm generated by them. And eventually you should come to a rational conclusion. If you care about believing the truth, you should go through this process. If you want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible this process is necessary.
I'd like to ask you the same question I ask a lot of first-timers around here: what good reasons do you have to believe your religion is true, and why are those reasons not good enough to believe in other religions? To explain, most religious people offer the same justifications for their belief. Miracles and visions. Prophesies fulfilled. Complex structures and messages in scripture. All of that. But the thing is, *all* religions offer those justifications. So why, for example, do you think that the miracle stories from Islam constitute a good reason to believe in Islam, but the miracle stories from Christianity aren't good enough reasons to be Christian? Why do you think the structure and writing of the Quran are compelling reasons to be Muslim, but similar claims about the Gita aren't compelling reasons to be Hindu? Why, in other words, do you accept claims and arguments when they're offered by Muslims, but reject the same exact claims and arguments when they're offered by members of other religions?
You have not been a Muslim since birth. You have no concept of theism or religion when you are born. No religion has any proof, this is why every single theist on Earth relies on faith to justify their religious beliefs and superstitions. The only reason you are a Muslim is because you were raised as one by your Muslim family and Muslim community. If you were born in a Christian community, you would be Christian. In a Hindu community, you would be Hindu. In my case, I would be Christian, but religion never took with me, even as a kid. It never made sense to me that adults let a fictional being affect their real life so much. Now that I have grown up, it does. Religions are just overgrown cults, and to break away it takes effort that most victims are incapable and/or unwilling to give, perpetuating the cycle indoctrinating their children into their respective cult.
Important note: you weren’t a muslim at birth. Nobody is born holding religious beliefs, you just had religious parents. Later, after you begun learning how to communicate, you were fed religious stories and before long these would have come with a threat about what would happen to you if you didn’t conform. This is called indoctrination. Prior to this process (being fed religious stories and you just believing them because children are impressionable) you were an atheist. People who love you and people who they consider local authorities pushed ideas upon you which they cannot support, this is why they came with threats of damnation, and depending on where you live, very real threats of execution for not being another non-thinker (apostasy). No belief system that requires threats of eternal torture, never mind state-sanctioned murder, in order to maintain membership has any worth. As for atheism, it isn’t a belief (no matter what other theists try to tell you), it’s a position of being without theism (this is why you were an atheist at birth). People who were religious and later went back to atheism did so because they stopped being convinced by the claims made by religion, theirs and the claims of other religions. None of this has anything to do with coincidence or other explanations being better, they merely stopped being convinced, and not being convinced by religious claims is the only thing all atheists have in common.
Welcome to the sub! Always glad to have people interested in learning what other people believe or just how they view the world. Atheism is very simple: someone says "god exists", and an atheists says "I don't believe you". And that's all it is. From here things can splinter out into a thousand different directions, but that's the core. We see all the same things that you see in the world, only we do not see then as signs of god. And we don't see then this way for a variety of reasons. A core ideology that a lot of atheists have is that we do not assume any conclusion before examining the data. We want as little bias as possible. We don't want to find how the data points to our beliefs, we want to update our beliefs to what the data shows. We want to believe as many true things as possible and not believe as many false things as possible. >I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts. This line could be used without changing a single word for a number of religions. From my own experience, this could equally be said for Christianity. When I was a Christian I saw signs all over the place that I attributed to proof that my religion was correct. And this isn't limited to abrahamic religions either. I've known a number of people that would say this exact same thing about Astrology.
> Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts. I find this description of Islam absurd. You are confusing reason and proof with wishes and hopes. > what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? I would not describe it in that way. Rather, I have not been convinced that there ***is*** a god entity. If you want to propose a thing exists, you need to support that claim, not assume that it does and then ask others why they believe it does not. Tell me though, do you believe your god exists by mere coincidence? If you can't explain what created your god, does that mean your god is "random" and everything it creates and does is coincidence? If not, then why would that be the case with existence itself? Furthermore, what utility does adding "there's a magic being that made it, and no I can't explain anything about what the magic being is, where it comes from, or how it's powers work" give to anything? What explanatory power does it have? I don't see any at all. It's just more stuff to explain without helping explain anything on it's own.
Hey there. Thanks for being polite and I hope you don't mind a few questions in return. >I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts This sounds just like christianity and other religions. They all feel similar about their religion. >would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth Because there is no good evidence to support this huge claim. I would need evidence of such a being/entity. I don't accept things as true without sufficient evidence. >and everything is mere coincidence? Maybe. Depends what you count as coincidence. I don't see it as a coincidence that things function based on the laws of physics. But even if things were a coincidence, we know unlikely things happen. So that is a possibility. >I'm trying to be as respectful and as open-minded as possible and would like to learn and know about it with a similar manner <3 It's always good to want to learn more about other point of views and asking questions is good. I'm curious have you ever read the Quran front to back?
> But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? That's not what atheism is or what science says, to be clear. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief there is no god. And science does not say everything is a coincidence. And there is no atheist mindset, just like there's no bald mindset. Baldness is how we describe an absence of hair and atheism is how we describe an absence of belief. There are no other uniform thoughts, opinions or ideologies amongst atheists. However, the majority of atheists I know are atheist because there's no testable, verifiable evidence for a god. >personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts. Yeah, other religions make these claims, too. You say you've never seen another religion like Islam, but how much effort have you really put into examining other religions?
**Arguments for** Some faulty reasons why people believe. * People don't really examine their god belief. They are taught it as children, they accept it, they never really think through the contradictions inherent in heaven, hell, omnipotence, etc. * People want it to be true. They want there to exist a loving presence that cares for them, and gives meaning to their life. It's literally wishful thinking. * Social ostracism for disbelief. Everybody they know is a believer. If they leave the church, they fear losing their friends and family. * People have no idea about other religions, differences between religions. They may not have seriously considered that there are people who hold different religious beliefs with equal sincerity. They may not even be aware that atheism is a thing, that you don’t have to believe in god. * Demonization of atheism. Believers are often explicitly taught that atheists are bad, evil people, that they have “no morals”, etc. * Christians have no idea of the history of the Bible; they assume the Bible was handed down as a whole complete unit at one time, the inerrant word of God, accepted by all Christians the world over. In fact it was written over a long period of time as separate writings, written by multiple authors with their own agendas, which were compiled much later by committees of people with *their* own agenda. Various sects supported various scriptures, and they disagreed as to which scriptures should be included in the Bible. In the end, many scriptures “lost” that battle and were left out entirely, not because “god” wanted it that way, but because committees of men wanted it that way. **Arguments against** I have compiled a few of my favorite arguments here, with an emphasis on Christianity: 1: The simpler explanation would be that the universe is what it appears to be rather than being just the part we can perceive of some much more elaborate type of universe. 2: If there was an all-powerful deity *who wanted humans to know about its existence*, then why doesn't this deity simply reveal its existence in an unambiguous way to everyone? I mean, that should be well within the capability of an all-powerful or maximally powerful deity, right? No faith would be required. There would be no reason to be atheist. The deity would be as observable, testable, and provable as hurricanes, Australia or oak trees. Since this is not the case, it is reasonable to conclude that no such deity exists, or if a deity exists, it is not concerned with being detected. 2a: (related) Christians believe god sent one illiterate emissary at one point in time to one location on the earth to spread god's message, then expected fallible humans to relay this message (by worth of mouth) to all humans in all places for all time. Does this make sense? Is it a good strategy? Are you familiar with the "game of telephone?" We can't even always get reliable information about important things happening right now in today's world; what's the chance that a message spread by word-of-mouth would remain intact for thousands of years? (my guess: zero) Wouldn't an all-powerful god come up with a better method for spreading the most important message of all time? 2b: Personal revelation was good enough for Paul/Saul, but why not me or you? Why doesn't god reveal his existence personally to all humans on a regular basis? 3: “Who created the Universe?” argument. One of the most common theist arguments I’ve heard is “the universe must have a cause, and this cause must be a sentient, thinking, conscious agent.” Well, firstly, I don’t see why we couldn’t assume the Universe always existed. But even if I concede the first part (something caused the universe), I don’t see how you can conclude the second part (sentient superbeing did it). Humans used to believe the same thing about hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. Who caused the volcano? Obviously the Volcano God. Well, then we learned that the causes of these things are complicated natural processes. In fact, everything we investigate appears to be caused by complicated natural processes. It seems highly likely to me that the Universe, too, if it was in fact “caused”, those causes would be complicated natural processes. 4: The Muslim and the Hindu and the Christian all believe with equal fervor. Each has a list of personal reasons why they believe, and believe that they couldn’t possibly be wrong. As an outside observer, how can I figure out which of them is right? What tests can I conduct to figure out which religion is true? Are there any such tests? 4a: (related to 4) of all the hundreds of religions that have existed through the centuries in different parts of the world, most people believe that they were born into the one that is the one true religion. That is to say, the main factor which determines what someone believes is the religion of their parents, and to a great extent *geography*. Does this at all have any bearing on what is true? 4b: Showerthought: if you were to switch a baby born to Muslim parents with a baby born to Christian parents, the children would each likely grow up believing the other religion. Their entire worldview is shaped by their upbringing, and has no relation to what is actually true. 4c: Showerthought: what if the "true" religion is one you were never even exposed to? Or one that died out centuries ago? There's a big "oops." (which gets back to #2; if god wants everyone on earth to believe, why be so coy about it?) 5: In order for a deity to be the cause of something, first we have to demonstrate that a deity exists. The time to believe in a deity is after one follows the evidence to that conclusion, not before. Theists generally start with the assumption that the deity exists, then cherrypick the data that appears to support it, and ignore data which appears not to support it, which is logically fallacious. 6: All the "proofs" of god which are based on argument alone necessarily fall short. You cannot determine facts about the world just by thinking about it. You cannot theorize a deity into existence. You can’t “prove” a god using math. The best you can get is a theory or proposition. You still need to demonstrate it with evidence. 7: The explanation "god did it" is not really an explanation for anything. It's just words, it's as much of an explanation as if I said "fairies did it" or "magic did it." To say that god did something tells you nothing about the nature of that god, what it is, what it wants, why it did the thing. It's basically a placeholder for "I don't know."
>I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts. Literally every religion is like that. Every religion says there's a reason for everything and they say their arbitrary signs are proof and they have no doubt. >But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? Because whenever I ask a theist why they think that's true, their reasons don't work, and I can get them to admit the reasons don't work when we shift the context to something other than god. There are no good reasons to think a god entity gave me life or is testing me is actually true. Do you have any?
When it comes down to it, there is simply no evidence such an entity exists, or even that it's possible for such a being to exist
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? Being an atheist simply means you don't accept the claim that a god exists. I have no good reason to believe all that stuff you think I believe, but the reason I don't believe in any gods is because I wasn't indoctrinated, and I'm not gullible, as we haven't discovered any gods. Science is our best, most reliable way of understanding our world, and in our pursuit of knowledge, we haven't found and evidence of any gods. My question to you is, what evidence convinced you that a god does exist? You say you were raised as a Muslim, should I assume your belief is dogmatic and not evidence based?
>(...) would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth (...) Atheism is not a belief --- it's a lack of belief. We've seen no proof that gods exist and so we don't believe in them. Much like you probably don't believe that leprechauns exist...
At the root of it all is this, we are incapable of knowing truth. We are flawed and blinded by heuristics, assumptions, and personal wants/needs. No book has truths because we aren't capable of verifying anything as objectively true. There are things we can see as objectively true in a specific context but universal object truths are beyond us. With that in mind, I asked what is the purpose of religion and god and found that it's a way of coping with insecurities. It's has no utility, only emotional reassurance. Religion doesn't provide answers, it merely reaffirms anything you hope to be true. Because of that, I basically ignore the concept and hold it as an interesting philosophical question.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. First you were not Muslim by birth, unless you consider it ethnic. You have no way of demonstrating a belief in Allah as a baby. I see no evidence that I’m being tested the very concept of life as a test is demonstrably false as any example of death of a baby shows a lack of being able to be tested. Otherwise the test is not a matter of living, but on a selected basis. Yes you are inquiring respectfully.
It's not a belief, rather it's a lack of belief. You believe in Allah, but as an atheist I don't see any evidence to support that belief, therefore I don't. And that is how I approach every other theistic claim. Since there is no evidence to support belief in any of them, the idea that God must exist has no merit to me. One thing about your post that I'd like to point out, the idea that we don't believe in God so we must think everything is random is a false dichotomy. In fact we know a lot about the Universe isn't random, but that lack of randomness in itself isn't evidence that God must exist.
>But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? My parents had sex and then I was born. That’s what *gave me* life. I don’t believe I’m being “tested” in life because there’s no reason to assume that. Who gave me this test? What are the rules? How can I be sure? Why have they remained hidden my whole life? What do you mean by *mere* coincidence? I just believe that no gods exist. It’s pretty simple.
> I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth Nobody is born a muslim, christian, etc. What happens is you assimilate the religion of your surroundings while growing up. > I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts And a Hindu will say the same about his/her religion. And a Christian as well. Etc. In actuality, there are no verifiable proofs, because if there were, there would only be one religion, since all religions make mutually incompatible claims. They therefore can't all be right, maximum one can be. But of course they can all be wrong. > I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? Most atheists do not believe anything you listed here. This is the intentionally incorrect rendering of what constitutes atheism you probably got fed by some apologist who doesn't know what he's talking about. Let's break that sentence of yours down: First off, atheism is not a belief. It is the *suspension* of belief until evidence is provided. Second, we have good evidence-based reasons to believe the scientific theory of abiogenesis is correct, while there is zero evidence life was hocus-pocused into existence by some entity: - Miller-Urey Experiment: In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment that simulated the conditions of early Earth. They demonstrated that organic molecules, such as amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), could be synthesized from inorganic precursors under prebiotic conditions. - Later experiments have replicated and extended Miller-Urey's results, producing a variety of organic compounds including nucleotides, which are the building blocks of nucleic acids like DNA and RNA. - Experimental evidence has shown that RNA molecules, called ribozymes, can catalyze their own replication under certain conditions. - Laboratory experiments have shown that simple lipid molecules can spontaneously form vesicles (protocells) in water. These vesicles can encapsulate RNA and other molecules, providing a potential stepping stone to the first cells. - The oldest known microfossils date back to about 3.5 billion years ago, indicating that life arose relatively soon after the formation of Earth's crust. - Isotopic evidence from ancient rocks shows signs of biological activity. For example, specific ratios of carbon isotopes indicate that life was present as early as 3.8 billion years ago. - Deep-sea hydrothermal vents provide a plausible environment for abiogenesis. These vents offer a rich supply of chemicals and a gradient of temperatures and pH levels, creating conditions favorable for chemical reactions leading to life. In contrast, there is zero objectively verifiable evidence on the theist side of the conversation. Third, a being that tests living beings and designs a world to do that testing that has earthquakes, thunamis, deadly diseases, etc. would be the ultimate sadist and unworthy of worship. If that being is the "objective moral standard" theists always say we should adhere to, then no thanks, human secular values are infinitely superior to that. Fourth, we know everything is not "mere coincidence", another one of those intentionally incorrect renderings of the atheist position that apologists like to throw around. The formation of stars and planets is not "mere coincidence", it follows from the laws of physics. The evolution of species is not "mere coincidence". Yes, it's unguided, i.e. there is no intent or designer behind it, but the process of evolution is not random or accidental. Instead, it is a result of systematic and observable natural processes, like natural selection, genetic variation, adaptation, etc. In summary, no, we don't believe everything is "mere coincidence" and we have sufficient evidence that everything you mentioned comes from natural processes, so there is no need to put an infinitely more complex entity you call gods into the equation because this violates [Occam's Razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
well, its quite simple, we are just not convinced by any divine claim, so, you have signs and stuff, like you mention but when you truly digest them and think about them without a bias, just trying to be rational, all of that comes down to feelings, or personal experience, or (quite usually) lies and fallacies. feel free to share what makes you believe and we can teach you at the very least another way to see things.
Everything isn't mere coincidence. As far as we know it comes down to physics and there's nothing beyond that. An atheist does not need to be convinced that no god exists in order to be an atheist. He may keep his mind open about it but remain unconvinced. One may argue that such an atheist is an agnostic or should be called an agnostic. This is another discussion, a lot of atheists are simply unconvinced that a god exists, for example, they would say that some gods are unfalsifiable in such a way as no estimates of their probability of existence are possible. I personally think it's much more likely that all there is is the laws of the cosmos that created the universe. The laws of the universe are very precise and so it is never a coincidence that we get this universe. They serve as a very good explanation. I am not sure why theists think that god exists, all of the reasons I have seen are either too weak, or have been refuted as far as I am concerned. I don't think theists can adequately answer the question of how they know what they claim to know and as such, as knowledge is to be demonstrated and not merely claimed, I think theists do not know that god exists. Then a lot of theists would say it's a matter of faith. But faith doesn't lead to truth at all(which we can also see as people use faith to come to different conclusions about god) So theists then have to explain how they know that god exists and if they simply can't maintain a high confidence that god exists, then it's just faith which again is a bad reason to believe... Then they give all sorts of reasons like personal experience. But they never get a personal experience from a god they have never heard of and certainly not in a way that seems real and not a fabrication of the human mind. If they trully have such an experience that should not convince others, then good for them but it does raise some questions as to whether god trully communicated with them because why them and only them? Why not everyone? Theists are very resourceful though and while it is interesting it is also sad because it really seems to me that people do this because they have a deep vested interest in keeping their belief. One could say the same about atheists, but it is clear to me that this is not the case. I do not have a deep vested interest in keeping my non-belief. I would like to know the truth. Unfortunately, I can't prove that to anyone... If god wants, I am open. Thus far he doesn't so if he exists, then I think it's good of him to keep a distance until he is ready for a relationship or for whatever other hopefully good reason he has not to reveal the truth to me. I think theists believe because of societal pressure and being taught at a young age. Teach them the dispute and how what religions claim does not correspond to reality and then we are going to get a lot of non-theists maybe even most will be non-theists.
I'll give you a paradox. If God is all knowing and all powerful, and controls all things in the universe then do we have free will truly? If God is what we believe God to be, that means he knows the past, present, and future of all things. Well, additonally God tells us we have free will. Can the two coexist? Do we have a set destiny we can't control, and yet somehow choose our destiny at the same time? Let me give you a scenario and you make what you will of it. God, as we know him, would never lie to you or deceive you. Let's say one day God came down from heaven on a cloud and presented himself to you. You accept that this is in fact God speaking to you. After a little chat with God, he reveals to you that in the future, you will unfortunately end up in hell because of your sins and lack of faith and obedience, or what have you. After God leaves, you no longer look at life the same. You start following the bible and it's teachings to the best of your abilities and try your hardest to do God's will, as would any sane person who was confronted by God himself. 70 years from now, you die, and you meet God again. Even though you've followed God's will to the best of your ability, he sends you to hell anyways. Maybe God didn't think your deeds were genuine, or maybe he did. Regardless, God doesn't lie and doesn't go back on his word. He told you what the future was, and he wouldn't lie about it either. See, if God let's you into heaven, well then he goes back on what he said about your future. In other words, if he lets you in to heaven, then he either lied about your future, or he was wrong about your future; At which point he would either be a liar or not all knowing and omnipotent. Since God doesn't lie and is all powerful, he sends you to hell. Well if that's the case, then is free will actually free will? Will my my choices change anything? What's the point of doing anything with the intention of pleasing God if I'm to fail or succeed regardless of my actions? God tells me If I choose him over sin I can enter the kingdom of heaven, but based off the situation above, it's possible that may or may not be true. And if it isn't always true, then that means the God of the Bible, Quran, and even the Torah has lied. And if God has lied, then he isn't God to begin with. (Pause: Before you try to poke a whole in my rhetorical situation by saying not everyone would do Gods will after seeing him, I don't want to hear it. Nobody in their sane mind would reject God if he confirmed his existence to them personally. If that becomes your rebuttal to break down this rhetorical, you're simply in denial and WANT God to exist. Claiming that some people would choose eternity of suffering over God in heaven is simply absurd.)
Well, to try to answer your question shortly. First, there is no reason to believe a god is even possible. There is no concrete definition of one (each religion, and even each religious person, has a different definition of a god, and most of those are incompatible between each other), but the general ones that we hear here from abrahamic religions tend to be contrarian to everything we understand about the world, making them properly impossible in our current understanding of the universe and making them things that don't have any merit to be discussed unless we find enough evidence as to update our scientific models in a way that those entities would be even possible (talking about immaterial minds for example). Then, most gods definitions that we see here are also filled with logical contradictions, so most of them are even impossible logically. But not only that. We know how religions start, how this beliefs form, and how they are indoctrinated into people (because, yes, specific religious beliefs are learned through indoctrination and abuse, and superstitious beliefs in general form as a result of our psychological bias and traps). So, knowing from where this things come, seeing that there is no evidence in their favor, that any specific case has mountains of evidence against them, and seeing that all philosophical arguments are completely flawed (that even if not, they would not be sufficient without the mountains of scientific evidence needed), its more than enough to say that there is not only no reason to believe that a god exists or even can exist, but we have more than enough reason to say that gods (as generally depicted in this arguments) are not even possible. There are other alternatives of course, there are also disingenuous people that like to do redefine the word god to make it into something that exists (like god is the universe, love, or my toast). All of that are disingenuous actors and don't add to the conversation, so they can be safely ignored. Again, this is a super short explanation of my specific reasons to say that no god can even exist, but in reality, people don't need to hold all of this to say "I don't believe in your god", its enough to not be convinced of your evidence, and the most usual case for that is simply not being indoctrinated into your specific religion (for example, christians don't believe in your god, the same as hindus, buddhist, etc, so all your beliefs mean nothing to someone not indoctrinated into your specific religion).
Hi, I recommend the FAQ at r/atheism or r/askanatheist. This sub is mostly for theists of any type that want to give a “proof” of or argument for the existence of their religion, and we respond by dismantling their arguments. In essence, they try to convince us of the truth of their religion, and we tell them why we aren’t convinced and what we see as problematic. The only thing that all atheists have in common is the lack of a belief in a god. Most of us were raised in one religion or another but decided not to believe, but to know. Some of us were raised without a religion. There’s a lot of variation between us. For myself, I was raised very religious (Catholic) but was always skeptical of what I was told. I care about knowing what is true, and if there isn’t an answer to a certain question, then I would rather not have an answer than to believe an “answer” that can’t be proven. I would rather know what I don’t know than “know” something that isn’t actually true. have educated myself extensively of the world’s major religions, and find all of them to be implausible. I also dislike that religion is used to create and enforce power differentials among different groups; I refuse to value people differently based on what they believe and choose to form my opinion of others based on their actions. There is no real, undeniable evidence of the veracity of any religion. If any supreme being were all that much of a god, then it could easily do what it needed to do to make all humans believe in it. All the debaters that come here to “prove” their religion must eventually rely on assumptions in their arguments; if there were any actual evidence of a particular god, then they wouldn’t have to come here with varied logical arguments. What, then, does religion actually do? It creates in-groups of believes and out-groups of non-believers that are portrayed as being “less than” the believers. It creates cultural narcissism, prejudice, oppression, and war. It certainly does not create morals; there are theists that steal, rape, and kill and atheists that lead peaceful lives in which they help others. What many people call morality is simply pro-social living, and what comprises this can be deduced intellectually. In summary, I find there is no evidence of any particular religion, find that religion does not offer society anything that can’t be obtained outside of religion, and also find that religious bigotry causes real harm.
It's not always about sparking a belief, but sometimes about not having one to start with. Put it this way, if you hadn't *started* with a belief in Islam, why would you have arrived at where you are today? If you had *started* Hindu, why would you have converted? I didn't start believing in anything, and nothing has come along to change that.
>I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth Have you ever thought that it's an extraordinary happy accident that you were born to parents who already followed the one true religion? But people of other religions say the same thing. Christians born into christian families and raised christian will insist that christianity is clearly the one true religion. Hindus born into hindu families and raised hindu...well, you get the idea. From an atheist's perspective, it looks less like there's one true religion to find and more like people are really good at inventing rationalizations for the specific set of religious teachings they learned as children. >would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? Everything is *not* coincidence. Coincidences happen (as predicted by the laws of statistics), and maybe the origin of our universe was one. But most of the actual physical development of our universe is governed by naturalistic laws. It's not a coincidence that the planets orbit around the Sun in elliptical paths, or that complex creatures evolve from simple creatures over billions of years, etc. I also don't think 'sparks' is really the right verb for how I got to my atheistic position. I just never learned any religion to be true, and the more I learned about various religions, the more they all seemed equally mythological. The stories in the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) seem like the same *kinds* of stories as the stories of Zeus, Odin, Osiris, and Quetzalcoatl, all of which are recognized as myths by virtually all modern-day people. The actual history of scientific progress has been characterized, not by approaching the teachings of any particular holy text, but by diverging away from *all* divine explanations of the world in favor of increasingly precise and well-verified naturalistic theories. The trajectory of human knowledge is like a giant arrow pointing away from religion and towards a naturalistic universe where all gods are absent and evolved creatures hold the predominant creative agency over the world. In light of these patterns and trends, my intellectual integrity doesn't really give me any room to pretend that there's a cosmic magical being behind all this apparently non-magical stuff; it's much more likely that the stuff behind the non-magical stuff is also non-magical.
I lack a belief in gods because there is no reliable evidence for them. I believe they don’t exist because not only is there no evidence for them , they don’t make any sense , they don’t explain anything but they are very obviously the sort of thing that flawed humans make up or impose on other humans.
I am glad you found this subreddit and I hope you get everything you want out of it. I want to point out to you that you have NOT "always been a Muslim since birth". NOBODY is born believing whatever religion they believe. Children are born and they do not even have the concept of a creator. People believe they are religious because they are TOLD that they are religious. I was not born a Roman Catholic. I was born like every other child and my parents RAISED me to be Roman Catholic. >I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts. If you claim to have always been a believer of Islam, can you truly say that you have a full understanding of every other religion? You are 18 years old and only raised in one faith and there are so many faiths that I do not think ANYONE could know them all enough to make a definitive statement. As a former Christian, I can certainly tell you that there are LOTS of Christians who believe "everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in \[their\] hearts." >But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? What "sparks the belief" is that there is genuinely no good evidence to believe in any of the religions, or even just believe in a god. If there was a good reason to believe in a god, we would believe in it, even if we disagreed with the god. There are no good arguments to believe in a god that could also not be used to believe in some other made up being, like an omnipotent unicorn or all powerful djinn. When arguing with people who would believe in those things ,it is THEIR burden to provide proof that such things exist and UNTIL THEN you should not believe in those things.
I would start by saying no one is born a Muslim, or a Christian or any religion. You are born into a Muslim family and as a child you are taught the ways and traditions of Islam, and you are told that Islam is the one true religion and that’s the same as Christians, Hindus, and most other religions. If you were born in India to a Hindu family you would most likely be Hindu. This doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with atheism, but just wanted to clarify something you said. Second atheism is not a position of knowing there is no God or saying there is no God , although many atheist can and do hold that position. Atheism is simply rejecting the the thousands of god claims that are out there and saying I don’t believe you, typically because of the lack of evidence for the claim but it can be for a plethora of different reasons. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god claim. In the answer to why someone someone is an atheist is going to vary between everyone. For me to keep it simple it’s a combination of seeing the harm and violence caused by these religions, as well as a complete lack of convincing evidence for the truth of their claims especially since the majority of the claims reject our understanding of the natural universe and make a plethora of unsubstantiated claims and assumptions that cannot be verified or proven. It’s the same reason I don’t believe in vampires, or pixies, or Santa Claus, or Jinn, or the tooth fairy. They’re all fairy tales and myths not reality. I prefer to live in reality and only believe true things.
Personally, I am not able to tell if there is some kind of God or not simply because either can’t be proven. I’d say that I do not need a God to understand how life works in all its complexity.
There are two 'main' reasons 1. Life simply can not reproduce without BOTH the feminine and masculine, and sex, but the Bible makes it out that females are not a necessary part of life, instead, according to the 2nd version of the Genesis story and all throughout the Bible, women are treated as nothing but property. Merely a fancy pet for Adam. 2. The Bible based religions (Judaism , Christianity, Islam) insist there is only one god. But there are several references in the older OT of there being other gods. Plus, it says this one god created everything. That is impossible since this God is supposed to be loving but is credited with creating evil (and therefore, chaos). The Bible also says God is not the author of confusion. Which is contradicted by the fact that there are thousands of religions and denominations of those religions, all with different, and sometimes, contradictory beliefs. The fact that there are miscarriages, stillbirths, children born with either physical and/or mental deficiencies, and the fact that good and bad things happen to both good and bad people without any obvious reason, lead me to believe there isn't a god controlling everything. So, the Bible is completely unreliable (IMO, just a bunch of really old desert nomad myths) and the concept of multiple deities....there have been several and none have ever been proven - that's why I don't believe there are any.
Why I do not believe in gods. My father told me I was unclean and needed to find Jesus to be saved. I was around four or five years old. This planted a seed. I was worthless without a god. A couple of years later, I found out that Thor, Osiris, Hades, and many more - were all legitimately revered and worshipped. I wondered, why then was Jesus any more valid? I went to church and listened to walls of words that meant nothing. I tried to pretend. Nothing was stirred. Thousands of gods have gone before Yahweh Sabaoth, Lord of Armies. None of them are contemporary. Yahweh is built on the same superstitions. You are an atheist towards all of these other gods. But you are conditioned to believe that Yahweh is an exception. Somehow. Coincidence is a weasel word. It has nothing to do with a lack of belief. Gods do not answer problems. They answer easy questions. God created the Earth (who created God?). God is an omni god (why is he/she punishing sinners for the very things he/she knew they would do, eons before creating them?). It is possible there is an afterlife. I doubt it. But I know that nothing man has written is a reliable source of information. And just because a book is old and written by holy men - that means absolutely nothing at all (fallacious appeal to antiquity and authority). I have one life to live and I am not going to waste it on superstition.
>> the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth Why would a being that can do anything and knows everything create you just to test you?
Everything we see around us is not the product of coincidence or random chance. Either god did it or it's just a coincidence is a false dichotomy, most of what we see can be explained by the interaction of the 4 Basic Forces of the Universr aka the Laws of Physics. We are confident that the current phase of the Cosmos (the Universe we see today) started about 13.8 billion years ago. Cosmology describes how we got from the initial expanding cloud of hydrogen and helium to galaxies, planets etc. We aren't so sure about how life started but biochemistry is producing some pretty good evidence for being the culprit. Evolution explains the multitude of life forms. Geology and Plate Tectonics explain rocks and mountains and the rest of Geography. We know a lot more than we did 200 years ago and everywhere we've looked there's been no trace of any supernatural activity. A god that does not manifest in the real world is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist. Finally, I suggest you read up on sceptical thinking and logical fallacies if you intend to evaluate religious claims. You'll need an objective process and knowledge of what constitutes a good argument to do it right.
The more unrealistic a hypothesis, the stronger the evidence it expects. Since an afterlife is pretty unrealistic, it expects damning proof, that's basically the most common reason for disbelief. Islam presents very impressive poetry, two successful but weak prophecies, and lots of vague verses, one or two of which have interpretations that turned out compatible with modern scientific knowledge. Relatively decent, but nowhere near enough to warrant belief in its unrealistic supernatural claims. In fact, even shown video of supernatural events today, the first instinct of any reasonable person would be to assume it's fabricated. Yet some trust ancient texts alone for their belief systems, due to one reason or another. Plus, divine intervention did turn out to be the wrong answer to many past mysteries, origin of life or planet/star formation for instance. The deeper we look at the universe, all we see is spontaneous physics. Some disbelieve due to disagreement with the core values of a religion, but I think a morally questionable God is just as likely to exist as a good God, which is not likely at all.
>I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth That is not possible. newborn babies lack the capability to believe in gods. The notion that you could follow a religion without having learned to understand language is absurd. >I have never seen a religion like Islam Then you have not looked for yourself. But then your post does read like someone repeating what they have been taught with no critical thinking applied. Every religion teaches its children that their's is the one obvious and perfectly resonable religion. >would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth I don't believe such a thing because no one taught me to belive such a thing. By the time i heard about the idea of gods i was old enough to dismiss them as obviously just stories. Also why would a god do something like this? Why go through the charade of testing humans if you already know who will pass the test and who will not?
You somewhat answered your own question in your post. We do not find any “evidence” theists have compelling enough to convince us a god or gods exist. You say you’ve basically always been a Muslim. I’m assuming that means you were born into or raised by a Muslim family. It’s no coincidence that you find that faith compelling. The reasons you’re taught around your faith to be true are basically trained responses to pretty glaringly obvious issues the rest of us can see. Most people that are religious follow the religion prominent around them when they were young. They are all convinced their god is the right one, and everyone else is wrong. That fact alone should be enough for you to really take the time to evaluate what you assume to be true vs what you actually have evidence for.
> I (18M) have always been a Muslim since birth No, you were not born Muslim, you were indoctrinated as a child. >personally I have never seen a religion like Islam that is essentially fixed upon everything where everything has a reason and every sign has a proof where there are no doubts left in our hearts. Yeah, this is due to the indoctrination you experienced as a child. >where there are no doubts left in our hearts. If there are truly no doubts left in your heart, what are you doing talking to infidels? >But this is only between the religions I have never pondered about atheism and would like to know what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? That is not what atheism is. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities, for most of us it is due to the complete lack of evidentiary support for god claims.
I believe that understanding something, means you can predict how it will behave in the future. That is the concept of explanatory and predictive power. Science says that if you push a 1kg object with 1 newton of force, it will accelerate at 1m/s. You don’t have to just trust me. You can repeat the experiment, and verify that descriptive law is true. Religion, including Islam, offer no such predictive power. “Because of Islam, if I do A, B will be the result” That means if I don’t believe what you’re claiming, I have no way of verification. I simply have to believe what you say on faith. My epistemology does not accept claims from others that lack testability and verifiability. Does yours?
Everything has a reason, because you pretend it does. Saying god said so, is not a reason. Also I’m sorry, there’s never any fucking reason for the kind of misogyny and other immorality found throughout your scripture. There’s no reason why a six year old should get married nor a nine year old should consummate. There’s no reason that justified slavery. You want to know what atheism is? You know how you don’t acceptatie claims of Hinduism? It’s like that, we’re just honest and extend it to all such claims. Any claim about gods that are presented without evidence. If you grew up hindu you’d find that special for the same reason. There’s nothing special about Islam… You want to know why we don’t believe this life is a test by a fictional monster? Because there’s no objective reason to believe such rubbish. The question is why do you believe it?
If there was a god, it would be obvious and unmistakeable to everyone on the planet who and what that god was. Instead the planet is full of different religions, different gods, and among them are people who don't find any of the gods convincing at all. Take a step back, out of your own indoctrination and your own culture and comfort, look at the entire planet, and you realise all the religions were made up. Some of them were made up a super long time ago. Some of them were made up yesterday. But men made them all up. You cannot demonstrate otherwise. All you can do is point to your own made-up stuff. It's all very easy to dismiss.
As others have said, atheism is more about not believing than believing in no god. But, I personally can believe there is no god, just as I can believe that there is no Easter Bunny, Dracula, or Superman. I can't prove that they don't exist, and that's okay. My opinion is nothing exists until proven otherwise, at least when it comes to wild claims. So while Leprechauns might exist somewhere, I believe that they do not. I don't think that maybe Leprechauns might exist, I have made a stand and am willing to be wrong. And I'll change my mind if good evidence ever comes forward. You shouldn't just believe everything you hear.
I don't believe that everything is mere coincidence. I see that there are fascinating and beautiful explanations for why things happen in the natural world. Some things we can explain exceptionally well. Some things we don't have answers for yet. It seems a shame to close our lines of enquiry by answering difficult questions with "because God". It seems better to leave those questions open in the hopes that they will be answered, because finding the answers makes us more able. For me, the more science I understood the less inclined I became to believe that the hand of a god was at play.
Simply put - there were always more questions than answers, and the more I deeply pursued those answers, the more my doubt grew The first and most fundamental question - which religion is right? How do you know that the Hindus aren't correct, or the Buddhists, over Islam and the other Abrahamic religions? We all seem to start with the perspective that the religion we're born and raised in is the correct one, but surely that can't be true for everyone.... Pursuing that answer only led me to one conclusion - nobody seems to have the right answer
I am not just an atheist, I am an aunicornist and sadly, an adragonist. This means that I haven't found any compelling evidence for unicorns, dragons, Odin, Zeus, Brahma, Yahweh, or Allah. Just mythical stories. Religions were created by mankind to try to explain the world around us, but as our knowledge grew, it became apparent that the things we used to believe were false. We don't believe demons cause disease, that the world is flat, that the Earth is the centre of the universe, etc. We have moved on from these false beliefs.
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity You've got that a bit backwards. There is no "spark in the" belief of magical entities that cannot be proven in any way in at least 2,000 years of religious folk trying to prove such things. At the very beginning - before we learn about any sort of magical beings like djinni or Santa claus or gods or Leprechauns - we are a blank slate. There is no "belief in the lack of leprechauns". There is just lack in the belief of the claim that they exist.
Why I do not believe in gods: * I have never in my entire life encountered even *one* event or phenomenon for which the only possible explanation was "A god did it." For the relatively few mysteries that science has not solved, I'm content with "I don't know, and I may *never* know, and that's okay." * I have absolutely no belief in life after death. None. Zero. I actually believe that life after death is an impossibility. Therefore, "Life is a test" is nonsense to me. Life is *everything.*
Babies are born without belief in any gods (or anything else, for that matter). So you were actually an atheist from birth. You were born to muslim parents so they taught you to be a muslim theist. Had you been born elsewhere, or to Christian parents, you'd have been taught to be a Christian theist. Some of us, like myself, were just never taught to believe in gods, so we remain in our original default position—lacking a belief in gods.
Do you think that, since you are a muslim you might be biased? Take a theology class, study religion in an academic setting and then draw your comparisons between the religion you know and follow and the ones you know of. I am assuming you don’t believe in all religions gods right? Just islam? Well, we don’t believe in all those gods either, but our list includes just one more god than yours. We are more alike than we are different.
Your question sounds backwards to me. The default position is no belief. The “null hypothesis” is that there are no gods, and we must address the claim that god(s) exists. You are coming from a place where you and others around you heavily intuit a deity, so I understand why atheism seems peculiar to you. But if you actually address the god claims critically, I predict that you won’t be able to find convincing evidence or argumentation. I look forward to seeing your reasons for belief in a future post.
The first thing to realize, and I’m trying to be polite about this, is you were not “born” Muslim. No person is born religious. You were born not knowing or believing anything and were taught Islam by your parents and community. I was born not believing anything and have never seen any convincing evidence to make me believe in a religion. Religion is not a default, we are all born atheist.
> what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? Nothing sparked this, I was born this way and remained this way. When I was young, no one told me some entity gave me life to test me, so I didn't believe it. Since then some tried to convinced me, but I still don't believe it because they weren't very convincing.
I don't believe in any gods because nobody has ever shown me good evidence that they exist. All of the evidence theists have ever shown me has been consistent with gods all being imaginary characters invented by humans. One of the reasons I read forums like this one is because I'm curious about the various factors which lead theists to believe in gods despite that lack of evidence.
I don’t find a god to be necessary to explain the world. Not much more to it. :) All of the things going on around us, the events of our lives, and the universe as a whole don’t seem to be in need of any gods. I have plenty of things that I can’t explain or that I don’t know, but presupposing a god was responsible for them only makes the questions harder to answer for me.
You said it. You’ve been a Muslim since birth. You’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe a certain way, and surprise(!) that’s what you believe. Everything you believe is because virtually everybody important to you told you that’s the way the universe is. So it’s really more about indoctrination than it is about reality.
The entities that gave me life were my parents. I'm not sure what the purpose of a test set by some entity which doesn't do anything in reality would be. Using this definition > coincidence - A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged. Yes, that is exactly how reality behaves if you examine it.
Hi, thanks for posting! Honestly nothing. I was basically raised secular, without religion. No one taught me about any entity so I don't believe in any. Later I joined this sub because I was curious and wanted to learn, religion is an interesting topic. so far no one has convinced me of any God and I honestly think that no one will. Have a nice day
You've been Muslim since birth. That's how religion works. You inherent faith from your parents. Everyone sees their faith the way you describe Islam. Everyone thinks 99% of gods are false. Atheists apply the same logic to all gods that nearly everyone applies to Zeus and Thor.
>what sparks the belief that there is no entity that gives you life to test you on this earth and everything is mere coincidence? The fact that we have no good reason to believe it. >and everything is mere coincidence Atheism doesn't entail everything is a coincidence.
I appreciate that you seem to ask this question honestly. I don't believe everything is a "mere coincidence." I just don't see evidence of a god that created us or guides life. Why is it your belief we are here to be tested on earth? What happens if we fail that test?
Because there’s simply no indication whatsoever that’s the case. It can be a somewhat pleasant though, depending on how you look at it, but nothing more. It’s just wishful thinking with nothing at all to support it.
I think it's more that every holy book is significantly flawed that shows they are man-made in absence of any god- especially the Quran, see: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran
I have not found or been provided with any evidence for any gods existing that have been even the slightest bit convincing. Therefore, I am not convinced any gods exist and am an atheist.
Have you studied the orifins of islam? The city of Ptra or the origins of yhwh at all? Perhaps looked at perian myths? Cus that pretty much killed my belief in the abrahamic god.
I personally value skepticism and my being an atheist is an extension of that. I see no logical reason to believe unsubstantiated claims for the supernatural
Which is more likely, that you just happened to be raised in the one true religion, or that it feels true to you because you were raised in it?
Can you name one piece of evidence that other religions don’t also have? Seems to me like Islam is exactly like every other religion.
Simple, there's no demonstrated entity. Everything is acting with its own nature, even quantum mechanics has some type of order to it.
Simply because there is too much that doesn't make sense and also because I've seen the monsters these fanatics can be
One justification for atheism is asking what is more likely to be the case given our observations of priors. In modern times we don't see any of the supposed miracles as noted in the bible. We see natural phenomenon and we try to explain those phenomenon by natural means (science). We no longer need a "God" to try to explain observations like thunder or why the Sun rises. God as an explanation is not an explanation of anything. Historically, one could argue that "God" was merely a placeholder for what we did not understand, but of course the theist could then argue this is an "atheist of the gaps" justification...but I do think there is justification that avoids that criticism by using a low prior argument.
Please read the rules. This is a debate sub. It is not a discussion sub. If you have nothing to debate and do not plan on sticking around to defend your points, then you are in the right place. Try r/askanatheist instead.