Two reasons for atheism:

Yes as you said we seem to require and seek explanations for the world around us and religion which provides this is common to practically all societies primitive and modern. However this self same quality combined with our ability to continually learn and sharpen our understanding of the world around as enhanced our ability to adapt and understand the world in new and more powerful ways. Indeed the challenges of the future require us to continue to do so. Adherence to the the thinking off a 2000 year old desert religion will in my view not cut the mustard in this regard and could possible be even dangerous.

 

Hence the use of the qualifier "arguably". And of course, if the Bible is not infallable, but merely a guide, then so is every other work of literature, film, TV show, video game and comic book ever produced, as far as an atheist is concerned. I think I've learned more about life from Batman than The Bible, anyway.

I think when you're born you're extremely susceptible to influence. Maybe it's the academic in me, but I don't think anyone is truly atheist until they've heard of the concept of a god.

For reelz? Can I see them? Not just being obtuse for the sake of it, I'm genuinely curious because I passingly looked into this and never found anything.

Why so? Ever see that South Park, where we find out that, no, actually Mormonism is the right religion and if you didn't pick that one you go to Hell? It's a nice idea that, as long as you live a good life, you get a good deal afterwards, but I see no real reason to believe it other than that. I can imagine an afterlife, and I find it pretty hard to believe that there's a bouncer on the door, but if there is, I'd imagine they'd be as exclusive as they could be, since presumably there'd be a lot of people trying to get in.

Well I agree, and I also feel that anyone proclaiming that religion is bollocks should be doing the same. Far too many people make such claims based on little more than a fairly wobbly understanding of Christianity, and it comes across. I think anyone who studies a few different religions, even peripherally, will not necessarily start believing in a god, but will at least gain a better understanding of why others do.

Yeah, but being 2000 years old gives them a veneer of credibility that Scientology, as an example of a modern religion, won't have for a good long while yet. People respect religions because they have plenty of subscribers and have stood the test of time, and I'll freely admit, I'll far more willingly listen to a lecture on morality that's been repeated for more than a millennium than listen to some jumped-up politician or philosopher barely twice my age pontificate on what I should or should not do. At least religion has the advantage of mass approval.

 

Yes I am in agreement as it has a certain veneer and our presence here attests to the importance that it has and continues to play in the thinking of many billions of people.

However I am less inclined respond to lectures on morality by clerics of any colour.

 

hehe 'the advantage of mass approval'...
it doesnt matter if its wrong, you will always have millions of people who will back you up anyway!

it is like, treating truth/knowlege as a pragmatic instead of an ideal

 

I agree with you totally.

 

Pretty much. I kind of envy it. It's not like truth and knowledge is actually getting us anywhere.

 

Well, i went to a Christian primary school when i was like 5 and they made us go to the church on thursdays coz it was like 5 steps away.. When i heard about Darwin i rejected faith, i later reverted to the rastafari movement but now i'm a firm atheist. I've done a lot of soul searching on this issue and couldn't be happier with my beliefs, thanks to Dawkins and Sartre, they've been especially influential. I'm a logical, rational, progressive philosopher, i can't take faith seriously, it's the opposite of evidence. The celestial teapot shows us that the burden of proof lies on the believer NOT the disbeliever.

 

I'm an atheist because I do not believe "faith" is a worthy answer to ANYTHING.

 

OK. So why don't you think stealing is acceptable?

 

Because it would be the taking of something that does not belong to me, in some instances I may feel guilt in others I may not. What does this question have to do with atheism?

 

So you believe in a concept of ownership. Can you justify that belief?

I think you'll figure this out as we go.

 

Are you trying to say that religion is essential to human life because it in some way gives structure or boundaries to the action that they take in their life?

If so I believe quite the opposite.

In short order, you don't need to believe in ghost's to be a good person and the world would be better if no one seriously speculated the existence of such nonsense.

 

That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm asking how theft can exist without a mass belief in ownership, and what the factual basis for such a belief would actually be. If it ultimately boils down to someone owning something because they have the biggest stick, then is that a sound basis for such faith?

 

I believe the "big stick" theory work's very well, and by that I mean there will always be assholes who would rather take easily than work hard and earn what they believe is rightfully theirs with or without a god.

There are no ghost's.

 

i feel im agnostic because i question everything.

if there is a god then ill see him i guess? or maybe ill go strait to hell and burn for however long. in that cause bury me with hot dogs and hamburgers!

 

So what your saying is that you would rather make up your own religion as you live your life?

 

So are you arguing against faith, or are you arguing against the supernatural? Because faith, as opposed to the cold hard logic that atheists like relaxxx think they subscribe to, will tell you that x is only wrong if you get caught - that is, that nothing is inherently wrong and that ultimately the only thing that stops us from doing anything "bad" is the fear of negative reprisal.

Rationally speaking, stealing is wrong because we live in a culture that has a concept of ownership, and because as social beings, acrimony from our peers is likely to have negative consequences in the long run.

Rationally speaking, stealing is perfectly fine if you get away with it and/or don't care what anyone thinks of you. Rationally speaking, poor people should not steal but rich people can, because it matters less to them.

And so on. My point here is that even labelling a "big stick" thief an arsehole is a value judgment, which in turn is based on faith in certain "core values" (again, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" essentially means "if you don't like America, you can git out", offering no explanation as to why). It's naïve to think that just because you do not have a religion or believe in what we would call a "supernatural" entity, you are somehow devoid of faith and any more rational for it.

 

I would like to think I am as close to being "devoid of faith" as I can get.

If you are willing to accept something based only on faith you are irrational.

That does not mean your going to start smearing feces on the wall but it does mean that you have admitted into believing something not based on fact.

Many religions have certain verses in there text's safe guarding them from this obvious flaw in there so called divine design.

They say things like ignore those who would mock your beliefs because to many your beliefs will sound foolish.

They sound foolish because they are foolish, and only fools believe them all the while religious business men become wealthy by spreading ignorance and preaching nonsense.

 

As have you.

And yet, if I tell you that gravity is fucking stupid, and when you cite chapter and verse from the Gideon's Wikipedia and just say "yeah, but a man wrote that, not God, so it's wrong", you'd think I was the fool.

You probably think I'm being facetious, because I do in fact believe gravity exists and find the arguments for its workings persuasive. But that does not mean I would openly mock anyone who didn't believe in it purely because I did, especially since I personally have never seen it proven with my own eyes.

I recently asked a few people how electricity is generated. Some of them got pretty close to being able to tell me, but ultimately, there was always a point in the explanation where x happens... and then you get electricity. And I'm talking engineers, people who use science in their day to day lives.

Science ultimately is based on faith. It's not a religion, but it is based on faith that the future will resembles the past because past futures have resembled past pasts. Electricity will be generated if you do certain things, and it doesn't matter if we don't know why because it's always worked before and thus will always work from now on.

Sounds pretty nuts, doesn't it.

 

I can test the laws of gravity very easily if I ever think I need to reassure myself as to whether or not they are correct.

Testing the laws of "faith" or the supernatural? Well I wouldn't know where to start.

Your confusing faith with assumptions.