Why should I be an atheist?

dont go cold turkey on your faith but become a Belieber.


there´s proof that Justin Bieber exists.

 

There's proof Hitler existed too, does that mean he's better off worshipping him than the christian god?

 

believing and worshipping are not the same, it´s wrong to worship that sick fuck but I have no problem believing Hitler is/was reel.

 

Believing someone is/was real does not have anything to do with the kind of believing/religion/theism on itself. I thought beliebers were beliebers not merely because they accept Biebers existence but because they adore him and his shitty music. That's why I made another ridicilous example

 

agreed, I have no idea why kids worship Bieber but if shitty music is the worst he has done to the world he´s not the worst one to follow.

 

Better said, there is no point in 'following' any musician in regards to the original topic But I totally understand why they worship Bieber: they are gullible and seduced into liking his music, image and shows. Where it comes to the branch he's working in, music and entertainment, he is definately one of the worst to 'follow' in any way from my point of view. I'm not really concerned though because I have trust most fans will look back on it later as a guilty pleasure (and a righteous one)

 

How did little Justin Bieber get lumped in with the likes of God and Hitler?

God and Hitler both ordered the destruction and death of millions.
About all JB's ever done is cause excessive vaginal secretions.

 

God does not give orders, people portray him like that. But I agree Justin Bieber is on another level and has no place here at all.

 

You don't have to be anything...Just do your own thing...

 

its just what happens when/if you lose your faith, no one else can reallly convince you to "join the team"

 

Is there a notion of human consciousness outside the realm of ignorance, including this one...we all point, is this not the function of this very Forum.

 

There are two separate issues here. One is whether or not to be a Christian, the other is whether or not to be an atheist.

In the first case I could go on for days why a person should not be a Christian, and should not believe in Yahweh or Jesus, but I will present only one reason here: The fundamental tenet of Christianity is vicarious redemption. Christians believe that sins are washed away in the torture and murder of Jesus. This idea is absurd in the highest degree. It is called scapegoating, and everyone knows that scapegoating is morally unacceptable. You are responsible for your immoral actions, and they cannot be washed away in someone's blood, even if that someone is 'perfect'. This means then that the fundamental tenet of Christianity is not only absurd, but morally unacceptable.

As for the second point I am less certain, but I was impressed by the following argument: If God has been postulated for the purpose of explaining the problem of how a complex universe came to exist, then this logic must be applied to God and we must ask 'How did God come to exist?'. This most likely leads to an infinite regress of gods creating gods, which seems absurd. This leads me to reject the claim that because the universe exists there must have been a god that created it. The conclusion is to become an atheist.

Another good reason to be an atheist is that no one has ever spelled out exactly what a god is, or what a god's existence would entail. So at this point in time theists and atheists are arguing about the existence of an undefined entity, which is itself absurd. Someone has coined the phrase 'ignostic' meaning one who refuses to be pulled into debates about gods until the term is properly defined.

Of course an atheist does not have to accept the claim that 'it is certain that no god exists'. I currently do not believe in any gods, and am therefor an atheist, but my atheism is tentative and subject to revision in light of new evidence and interpretations. As a skeptic this is essentially how I treat all claims about reality. I tentatively reject every claim that anyone ever makes to me, but I am always willing to be swayed by new evidence and interpretations.

 

^
Hells Yeah!
Damn Straight!

 

you shouldn't have to be convinced by anyone to follow (or not follow) any religion or idea. you have to accept that, as a human, you will never know for sure and that you won't suffer for that. believe what makes sense to YOU based on YOUR experiences. choosing to be an atheist based on what atheists tell you is the same exact concept christians use to spread their religious ideas.

 

There is a difference between telling someone what to believe and providing evidence or arguments in favor or against a position. Read my previous post three posts up. Am I telling anyone what to believe? No, I made an argument with premises and a conclusion. I would hate it if someone read my post and automatically believed it. What I want is for people to evaluate it critically, and arrive at tentative conclusions. This is not at all analogous to proselytizing or preaching.

Of course you should not form your opinions based on what people tell you. You should listen to what people tell you, assess the statements critically, and form tentative conclusions, while hopefully contributing your own arguments and evidence to the conversation. Haven't you ever formed or changed an opinion that you hold based on things that other people told you or that you read?

 

there are atheists who are just as guilty as christians when it comes to attempting to force their beliefs on someone.. i did not think that was the case with your post. i don't agree with your post entirely but that is the exact point you just made, it stimulates one to assess your statements.. as well as one's own set of beliefs. you are, also, correct in that i have formed and changed opinions based on various things i have read.

 

Another person who doesn't comprehend the definition of atheism.

I'm throwing my empty fist full of no poop at you!

 

Who am I to persuade you to believe in something? People are generally logical and lead an evidence based life to build upon their knowledge. If you cannot or will not believe in something based on blind faith then of course you may be an Atheist. However if you're still open to the possibility then maybe Agnostic would be a more fitting 'tag'.
I hope your find your path and achieve some peace.

Shayla x

 

I question that "vicarious redemption" is "the fundamental tenet of Christianity". If it is, I'm certainly not a Christian; but I think I am one. When I say I'm a Christian, I mean I've accepted Jesus as my savior and role model. Savior from what? From the idolatrous mindset that is hell. The "vicarious atonement" model is emphasized by lots of Christians as a result of the success of Paul's missionary activities. It makes no sense to me. My brand of Christianity is more Gnostic than Paulist. Jesus, the Logos, gave us the insight to understand spiritual reality: "the Kingdom of Heaven is spread out everywhere upon the earth, but people do not see it." Sacrifice, blood, vicarious atonement, etc., might be useful metaphors for those who find meaning in them. I prefer to see the cross as a symbol of the triumph of the human spirit over secular bureaucratic oppression.

God has always been more than an explanatory hypothesis. The "too good to be trueness" of existence may add to our sense that there is "Something Big Out There" that can be considered a Higher Power, but logical "proofs" (and disproofs) of God don't work. Btw, the idea that something came from nothing, which has been floated with some cocksureness by atheists like Stenger, seems hardly less questionable. Some of us who are willing to bet our lives on the God hypothesis find it a rewarding experience.

That's the problem with the ineffable. I couldn't begin to "spell our exactly" what God is. What exactly are Justice, Freedom, Truth, Beauty, etc.? Shall we then dismiss them all as "absurd". I think of God as, among other things, the summation of human idealism, or to use Tillich's phrase, the "Ground of Being".

As a "theist", I operate pretty much on the same basis.

 

Okie, to your first point: You will have to forgive me for basing my first statement on the biased sample of Christians that I have known personally. I attended Christian schools all of my life, while living in a predominantly Christian community, and virtually every one of them that I spoke to believed that their sins were "washed away in the blood of Christ." I will from now on qualify my statements about vicarious redemption properly.

To your second point: I find that the god hypothesis merely adds to the list of things requiring an explanation, rather than subtracting from it. I have never understood why the magnificence of existence has compelled people to believe that there must be something even more magnificent 'out there'. Also since I reject the claim that 'god has always existed' to me a god would require an explanation comparable to the one that the universe itself requires.

To your third point: I think that the problem of defining God and defining Justice are only analogous at first glance. The fact is people go on an on about believing in god without ever stating what they think God is. Is it a person, an entity, does it occupy space and time, does it think, does it have free will, is it made of some substance? With things like Justice, while we may not be able to agree on a definition it is certainly possible to put forth candidates. Justice is necessarily something that only exists when there are agents existing. It is certainly rooted in brain chemistry. A sense of justice has to do with considering a situation in which agents are interacting and arriving at a feeling (an emotion perhaps) about those interactions and their consequences for those agents involved. Also, when you say that God is "the summation of human idealism" you sound like a poetic atheist, not a theist or even a deist.

To your last point where you say "As a "theist", I operate pretty much on the same basis": I have been struck several times during our conversations by the fact that you and I seem to be thinking along the same lines but arriving at different conclusions, or at least describing them differently.

It is always a pleasure to correspond with you.