Ask an atheist

[The Corinthian]

So... being new here and all, I guess I'd better make an introductionary thread. However, as these kinds of threads tend to be rather boring, I'm trying a new approach.

I call it: "Ask an atheist".

I usually just spend a lot of time in the atheist communities, where you mostly converse with like-minded people, which can easily make your world view pretty unbalanced. Hence me joining this forum.

So, I'm using my introductionary thread to try to "connect" with you the religious users on this forum.

So, if there ever was anything you ever wanted to ask an atheist? Now is your chance!!!

Feel free to ask me anything. How I became an atheist? Why I became one? What is an atheist's take on platypuses mating rituals? Do I even believe that platypuses are real animals?

Ask away.

(Even feel free to try to convert me if that is your thing. I'm always open to solid arguments, and always give people credit for them, but still, good luck though )

[Confused]

Ok, I will bite. Can you logically rationalize the non-existence of God to confirm your foundation as an atheist?

(obviously going straight for the jugular here)

That looks like a good question for a new thread. Would you like to start one?

I will allow you to jump on it. You know how awful I am in wording the OP. Somehow yours always seem to sound so much more intelligent (go figure, must be the lager, LOL).

[The Corinthian]

Ok, I will bite. Can you logically rationalize the non-existence of God to confirm your foundation as an atheist?

(obviously going straight for the jugular here)

I was actually fishing a little for a question like this one, and I did say you could ask anything. I'll answer it at them bottom of this post.

That looks like a good question for a new thread. Would you like to start one?

Yeah, it is an excellent question for a new thread. I will however give my answer in this thread, as I'm kind of committed to this introduction thread.

Why do you think there have not been any Christians asking you questions, yet?

I really cannot speculate about the motives of Christians, but several reasons has of course crossed my mind. 90% of them are though completely ordinary.
I don't know what the Christian/atheist ratio is on this site, so I don't know how many Christians users there is on this forum to ask questions. Maybe they don't find the thread interesting, because all questions they could come up with, have already been thoroughly answered in another thread. Maybe they are afraid of the answers (I of course don't think this after viewing the healthy debates in the debate forum)

Can you logically rationalize the non-existence of God to confirm your foundation as an atheist?

Yes, I believe I can, or else I wouldn't be an atheist. If I ever were to discover any logical or rational flaws in my world view, I would it take up to reconsideration as all good scientists would.
If new conflicting data appears, you always see if a new theory can be created to explain the new data, or you reject the theory as invalid.

I think your question tells a lot of the two fundamental world views Christians and atheists hold. Christians start off with God, and from there, you have to logically rationalize that he doesn't exist, i.e. prove that he doesn't exist. Atheist start off with no God, and from there, you have to prove that God does exist.
The reason why atheist don't assume anything, unless there is data to back it up, is because you could sit all day long and think of an infinite unfalsifiable notions, and it would be ridiculous to believe them all just on faith. Even if you choose to believe one of these notions, you couldn't say anything about them. Christians look at was is around them and surmise a God from that, i.e. everything must have come from somewhere, and at some point, everything must have come from nothing, and to explain this concept, you have to have a God. I say that even if you choose to believe this (there are other possibilities to explain the above mentioned concept, and science continues to explain more and more of the beginning of the universe), you can't say anything about the that very God. You can't say anything about his intent, motives, or wishes.

You of course bring the Bible into the picture, but the origin of the Bible is highly dubious, and I wouldn't believe anything in it, unless I had a damn good reason, backed up by evidence. There are tons of other religious text out there, extremely similar, and why should you believe in the Bible and not the other, just because your parents told you about it. If they had raised you in another faith, you would have believed something different. This makes religion extremely relative and subjective. It's about subjective choice and indoctrination, and not about truth. Plus, people interpret the Bible differently, and differently through time.

Okay, that was my short version. I like to keep things short, clear, and to the point. However, I'm not that eloquent, and don't know how to use commas properly in English, so please ask if there is something you don't understand.

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok, I will bite. Can you logically rationalize the non-existence of God to confirm your foundation as an atheist?

(obviously going straight for the jugular here)

That looks like a good question for a new thread. Would you like to start one?

I will allow you to jump on it. You know how awful I am in wording the OP. Somehow yours always seem to sound so much more intelligent (go figure, must be the lager, LOL).

Flattery will get you everywhere . I'll get to it.

[Confused]

I think your question tells a lot of the two fundamental world views Christians and atheists hold. Christians start off with God, and from there, you have to logically rationalize that he doesn't exist, i.e. prove that he doesn't exist. Atheist start off with no God, and from there, you have to prove that God does exist.
The reason why atheist don't assume anything, unless there is data to back it up, is because you could sit all day long and think of an infinite unfalsifiable notions, and it would be ridiculous to believe them all just on faith. Even if you choose to believe one of these notions, you couldn't say anything about them. Christians look at was is around them and surmise a God from that, i.e. everything must have come from somewhere, and at some point, everything must have come from nothing, and to explain this concept, you have to have a God. I say that even if you choose to believe this (there are other possibilities to explain the above mentioned concept, and science continues to explain more and more of the beginning of the universe), you can't say anything about the that very God. You can't say anything about his intent, motives, or wishes.

You of course bring the Bible into the picture, but the origin of the Bible is highly dubious, and I wouldn't believe anything in it, unless I had a damn good reason, backed up by evidence. There are tons of other religious text out there, extremely similar, and why should you believe in the Bible and not the other, just because your parents told you about it. If they had raised you in another faith, you would have believed something different. This makes religion extremely relative and subjective. It's about subjective choice and indoctrination, and not about truth. Plus, people interpret the Bible differently, and differently through time.

Okay, that was my short version. I like to keep things short, clear, and to the point. However, I'm not that eloquent, and don't know how to use commas properly in English, so please ask if there is something you don't understand.

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I realize there is a thread already but it is so long, I am not interested in reading everyone elses opinion, so I am opting to response here. Hope you don't mind.

Ok, we can logically say with a high degree of probability that there is no God. But can we prove it? This is what I think it all boils down to. The burden of proof for a Christian would be to prove God exists since they assert such. The burden of proof for an atheist is to prove God doesn't exist since they assert such. Thus far, I have seen you give logical reasons as to why God (of any denomination really) does not exist. But how do you get from there to saying with certainty: GOD DOESN'T EXIST?

[The Corinthian]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I realize there is a thread already but it is so long, I am not interested in reading everyone elses opinion, so I am opting to response here. Hope you don't mind.

No problem.

Ok, we can logically say with a high degree of probability that there is no God. But can we prove it? This is what I think it all boils down to. The burden of proof for a Christian would be to prove God exists since they assert such. The burden of proof for an atheist is to prove God doesn't exist since they assert such. Thus far, I have seen you give logical reasons as to why God (of any denomination really) does not exist. But how do you get from there to saying with certainty: GOD DOESN'T EXIST?

I think you, to some degree, can extrapolate the answer from my post.

The reason why atheist don't assume anything, unless there is data to back it up, is because you could sit all day long and think of an infinite unfalsifiable notions, and it would be ridiculous to believe them all just on faith.

Yes, you cannot say with absolute certainty that a god doesn't exist, but in the end, it boils down to a question of pragmatism (a universal standard that you apply to the world for pragmatic reasons).

First off, you cannot prove or disprove something that is unfalsifiable.

Second, you would run into a bit of a practical problem if you had to prove or disprove every single one of the infinite unfalsifiable notions you could think of (especially since they are unfalsifiable). So instead of taking the agnostic position to each and every single one of the infinite unfalsifiable notions, I choose non-belief simply for pragmatic reasons. This counts for the invisible pink unicorn, leprechauns, as well as Yahweh.

So I guess the only fair logical choice really is to be an agnostic, but for pragmatical reasons, I call myself an atheist. I personally think it is silly there even is a word for it. Just like I don't need to state my agnostic/atheist position towards leprechauns.

[Confused]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I realize there is a thread already but it is so long, I am not interested in reading everyone elses opinion, so I am opting to response here. Hope you don't mind.

No problem.

Ok, we can logically say with a high degree of probability that there is no God. But can we prove it? This is what I think it all boils down to. The burden of proof for a Christian would be to prove God exists since they assert such. The burden of proof for an atheist is to prove God doesn't exist since they assert such. Thus far, I have seen you give logical reasons as to why God (of any denomination really) does not exist. But how do you get from there to saying with certainty: GOD DOESN'T EXIST?

I think you, to some degree, can extrapolate the answer from my post.

The reason why atheist don't assume anything, unless there is data to back it up, is because you could sit all day long and think of an infinite unfalsifiable notions, and it would be ridiculous to believe them all just on faith.

Yes, you cannot say with absolute certainty that a god doesn't exist, but in the end, it boils down to a question of pragmatism (a universal standard that you apply to the world for pragmatic reasons).

First off, you cannot prove or disprove something that is unfalsifiable.

Second, you would run into a bit of a practical problem if you had to prove or disprove every single one of the infinite unfalsifiable notions you could think of (especially since they are unfalsifiable). So instead of taking the agnostic position to each and every single one of the infinite unfalsifiable notions, I choose non-belief simply for pragmatic reasons. This counts for the invisible pink unicorn, leprechauns, as well as Yahweh.

So I guess the only fair logical choice really is to be an agnostic, but for pragmatical reasons, I call myself an atheist. I personally think it is silly there even is a word for it. Just like I don't need to state my agnostic/atheist position towards leprechauns.

Very well presented, and I didn't have to go through the long thread that is ongoing to get here.

I think you are correct in the logical position in regards to agnostic. But I can't identify with one because its core belief is there is some higher power, maybe not a God as we know it, but a God nonetheless. I have seen no evidence of this, so I cannot take something out of existence that has yet to be brought into existence.

[The Corinthian]

Very well presented, and I didn't have to go through the long thread that is ongoing to get here.

I think you are correct in the logical position in regards to agnostic. But I can't identify with one because its core belief is there is some higher power, maybe not a God as we know it, but a God nonetheless. I have seen no evidence of this, so I cannot take something out of existence that has yet to be brought into existence.

Thanks.

I might have misunderstood you (the emphasized part), but are you sure you are not confusing agnosticism with deism?

I cannot take something out of existence that has yet to be brought into existence

So very true. I'll have to remember that one.

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't know what the Christian/atheist ratio is on this site, so I don't know how many Christians users there is on this forum to ask questions.

In my opinion, the ratio of members who present strong arguments is heavily in favor of Non-Theists. The most vocal theists are NOT the strongest or most rational debaters. The strongest theists choose their battles and their words carefully – and are often in the background and relatively quiet.

The forum needs strong theist debaters to attain balance.

Maybe they don't find the thread interesting, because all questions they could come up with, have already been thoroughly answered in another thread.

It is not the nature of Christianity (or religion in general) to ask questions – but rather to give "answers".

Those who question consistently and frequently – and demand answers that apply to the real world we inhabit – must become frustrated with the lack of realistic answers from religions (alive and well after “three days in the belly of a fish”, a high mountain from which one can see “all the kingdoms of the world”, and other magical events that are typically claimed to be absolutely true).

Maybe they are afraid of the answers.

A static system (unchanging even in the presence of compelling opposing evidence) IS afraid of answers – and questions – and new knowledge – because its “truths” cannot be shown to be universally or eternally true. [/opinion]

[The Corinthian]

Zzyzx I agree with you completely. The quotes you used, was me being polite and diplomatic

I personally think that strong theistic debaters is hard to come by, because theism is IMO irrational, thus making it to make rational, solid and logical arguments for.

I think that this comic titled "apologetusk" sums it up nicely:



This forum is, however, still far the most balanced forum I have come by.

[Zzyzx]

.

This forum is, however, still far the most balanced forum I have come by.

I do not disagree; however, the "unbalance" is great enough to make debate less than intellectually stimulating much of the time. As someone said, "It is no more challenging than beating up my little brother".

I had greater regard for the theist contingent before I began debating Osteng in the Head to Head forum. I expected that the site administrator would present strong and straight-forward arguments. Perhaps that is not possible when one is attempting to defend tales of invisible super beings and magic tricks.

Would you be so kind as to peruse at least some of our "Is the flood literal" debate in Head to Head and post your observations in the "comments" thread of General Chat and/or PM me?

Your straight-forward manner is effective and appreciated.

Zzyzx