Why do atheists reject the existence of any kind of deity?

Reason 1: Lack of Evidence for God’s Existence

Simply put, atheists do not see any evidence that suggests that a deity might actually exist. Atheists do not observe any phenomena that can only be explained by invoking a deity. If every aspect of existence – from atoms to morality – can be accounted for without any mention of a god, then belief in a god is simply superfluous and adds nothing substantive to one’s understanding. Occam’s Razor states that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity and that, all other things equal, the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is the correct one. So far, atheists have been unable to find any phenomenon for whose explanation the concept of a god is indispensable.

Reason 2: Lack of “Faith”

The term “faith” has multiple meanings, many of which atheists do not reject. Atheists can and often do exhibit “faith” in the sense of trust in other people, institutions, or natural phenomena. They also exhibit “faith” in the sense of a belief in some kind of idea. They do not, however, exhibit “faith” in the sense of a “belief that is not based on proof” (Dictionary.com). Many religious individuals will readily admit that there exists no evidence for the existence of a god; they will then claim that they believe in a god nonetheless, because they possess this faculty of “faith.” An atheist possesses no such faculty.

Reason 3: Lack of Convincing Arguments for God’s Existence

Atheists are not necessarily closed to the possibility of ever believing in a god, but they require that they be presented with a convincing reason for why they should. While many religious individuals have sought to present arguments for belief, atheists have largely not found them compelling. This does not mean that theists ought to stop trying. Rather, they should recognize which arguments have failed to convince atheists, despite having been tried time and again. August Berkshire offers a useful list of some of these in his “21 Unconvincing Arguments for God.” When theists begin to present new arguments that encourage atheists to approach the question of the existence of a god in a hitherto unexplored manner, they can be sure that many atheists will give such ideas serious consideration.

Reason 4: Desire to Avoid Rituals and Institutional Entanglements

Most religious systems are not merely abstract networks of interrelated beliefs. They also entail adherence to a specific social hierarchy and a highly particular set of customs, rituals, and ceremonies. Many atheists simply do not wish to recognize the authority of any particular group of men who call themselves priests or pastors. They do not wish to undertake a certain set of dietary prohibitions or regulations regarding how they must or must not spend certain days of the week. Atheists tend to dislike entangling abstract belief systems with concrete institutions, as the institutions will often do great discredit to even the very principles they claim to uphold.

It is true that a person who wishes to avoid such institutional entanglements is still in theory free to believe in the existence of some kind of deity. Most gods, however, are so constructed (and atheists believe that gods are human constructs) as to require highly concrete and particular forms of obedience, such as attendance at a church or temple, the offering of certain material sacrifices, the singing of specific songs, the uttering of specific sequences of words, and adherence to extremely thorough prescriptions governing everything from birth to marriage to the conduct of meals. An individual is free to invent a god that does not require such forms of worship, but at that point he would quite explicitly be creating a deity, not finding an already existing deity outside of himself. It is as difficult to believe in the existence of a god of one’s own imagining as it is to think that a fictional character that one has just put into a story actually lives and breathes.

Reason 5: Upbringing and Fundamental Intellectual Framework

Just as many individuals become certain of their religious convictions from being raised in a particular faith, so do many atheists lack a belief in a deity in part because they were not raised with such a belief. None of their parents and few other adult authority figures in their lives actively encouraged or cultivated a belief in a god, so no such belief emerged. In the meantime, the young implicit atheists developed an entire worldview which did not require the presence of a god to explain any aspect of existence. Many of the conclusions which an atheist with this background has arrived at and implemented in his everyday life are so deeply rooted in his basic worldview that to introduce an entirely foreign element – like a god – into such a worldview would overturn everything and leave the atheist confused and skeptical of the morality of even elementarily good actions. Many of the same ethical and practical conclusions are, of course, consistent with both belief and disbelief in a god, but there is no guarantee that abandoning an intellectual framework that took a lifetime to develop will lead the atheist to develop another equally formidable framework in a much shorter time period. The same argument, of course, applies to a religious individual with respect to his faith – especially if such a faith underlies the majority of his ethical and practical conduct. It is not advisable for him to abandon his religious framework unless he is certain to replace it with a more extensively developed non-religious one. Otherwise he might lose the motive to pursue actions that are moral irrespective of their justification.

Reason 6: Conviction that Certain Ideas about Gods are Self-Contradictory

Many atheists take issue with the specific attributes that believers ascribe to particular gods. This particularly applies to the monotheist faiths, where God is most often characterized as simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent – an inherent contradiction according to many atheists. Furthermore, many atheists are skeptical of the idea that a God created the universe, particularly if they do not believe that the universe ever was or needed to be “created.” When examining the gods of other faiths – deities somewhat more limited in their powers – atheists often perceive contradictions in the formulations of those gods as well, or at least a lack of empirical evidence that the gods have the powers that they are thought to have or dwell in locations described as their homes. For instance, despite numerous individuals having climbed Mount Olympus, Zeus has been nowhere to be found.

As atheists vary dramatically in the specific content of their positive convictions, they will diverge substantially as to the more specific arguments they will present for their disbelief in a god. My own “Five Arguments for the Non-Existence of God” are offered as some of my personal reasons for atheism – though they are not necessarily shared by atheists at large.

:popcorn:

Another good post. Maybe some of the more outspoken Christians on this forum will read it and finally understand that Atheists don't hate God, or are angry with him. We just don't think that "God did it" is a compelling answer to anything.

This is the trouble I see with labeling yourself an "atheist'. The label creates a group, and a group has a "group identity', as shown here. These are the precepts of the faith of the "fundamentalist atheists" as they are often described, with Richard Dawkins being the chief priest and theologian of the bunch.

The term "atheist" creates a problem from the outside--you can be lumped together and "atheists" can be "opposed", just as you oppose Christians for instance. Second, and perhaps more important, there is a problem from the inside as well. Although you might intellectually understand, and vigorously argue with people who say things such as "well Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists", you yourself and partially responsible for developing the group that you can be joined together with.

I recognize the temptation--everyone wants to belong to a group. To call yourself an atheist is to be something special, it becomes a cause you can devote yourself to. You become a crusader for "reason". It give you a little niche with a goal and a purpose, people you can relate to, and opponents outside of it. You write papers for college talking about the weaknesses in the ontological argument in your philosophy classes and the atrocities of religion in your history classes and organize group readings from secular humanists in your downtime. I get it.

But it's a trap--tactically and personally. Don't get sucked into it.

I'm not saying give up learning about these issues or taking an interested in them. Feel free to read and study whoever you want. But don't be "an atheist". Just be someone who doesn't like bad ideas and likes to question things--all things. There is no group to join, nor precepts to follow. It is not label, but rather an attitude.

Actually there is an established atheist church, I am not sure where it is at nor do I really care where it's at, but they all have decided on a meeting place to congregate. Kind of funny, people having the inner draw of having to gather and be thankful for something.

Atheism is a religion whether you think it isn't or not. The religion of non-religion.

one more point as well, Dianetics is an established atheistic religion. Maybe you should look into it.

Edit: No name calling is allowed I guess

This is the trouble I see with labeling yourself an "atheist'. The label creates a group, and a group has a "group identity', as shown here.

Absolutely. Many people have said this very thing before, Sam Harris being one of the more notable. The worst part about atheism is that Atheist devolves into a label and the unintelligent or the unwilling use it as a weasel word so they don't have to understand the concept. A quick google search shows statements like:

"[atheism] fails to qualify as science"
"[atheism] fails to adequately explain"

They are of course missing the point that atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of gods, much the same as a disbelief in the existence of the easter bunny.

If there were such a word as aeasterbunnyism, we might see detractors claim that "aeasterbunnyism fails to adequately explain...". But there is no such word because those who believe in the easter bunny are benign.

Imagine you lived in a world where a significant majority believed in say astrology. Those that believed would be constantly checking the stars before doing anything. That's fine, people can do what ever crazy stuff they like as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. But then imagine that the legislators get involved and start wars because the stars tell them too, or other lunacy.

In this world you may decide to publicly call youself an Aastrologist. It makes it easier to find like minded people, but more importantly, it lets those who have been brought up inside the system know that there is another viewpoint and that they have choice.

Actually there is an established atheist church, I am not sure where it is at

google says, Carrollton in Dallas so you can drop in if you like.

"Reason 3: Lack of Convincing Arguments for God’s Existence

Atheists are not necessarily closed to the possibility of ever believing in a god, but they require that they be presented with a convincing reason for why they should. While many religious individuals have sought to present arguments for belief, atheists have largely not found them compelling. This does not mean that theists ought to stop trying. Rather, they should recognize which arguments have failed to convince atheists, despite having been tried time and again. August Berkshire offers a useful list of some of these in his “21 Unconvincing Arguments for God.” When theists begin to present new arguments that encourage atheists to approach the question of the existence of a god in a hitherto unexplored manner, they can be sure that many atheists will give such ideas serious consideration."

What makes us feel like we're so damn important God has to report to us?

even athiests are open to the possibility of God, I'm just devoted to it.

^

Do I get some kind of corny nominee award or something?

What makes us feel like we're so damn important God has to report to us?

Bloodshots reasoning for God's existence.

1. We're not important enough for God to let us know that he exists
2. We have no evidence that God exists.
3. The lack of evidence that God exists is proof that God exists.
QED.

Bloodshots reasoning for God's existence.

1. We're not important enough for God to let us know that he exists
2. We have no evidence that God exists.
3. The lack of evidence that God exists is proof that God exists.
QED.

1. he has nothing to prove to us
2. only what I feel
3. the lack of evidence God exists yet I feel otherwise shows insanity or wisdom

feelings cannot be gauged by science.

life is a feeling. You take a man who's alive, and you take another man, cut off the blood to his brain for an extended period of time, and he dies. What's the difference in these two bodies? they both are intact, what's missing cannot be measured therefore it does not exist in science. science is only a specific branch of knowledge, not knowledge in general.

feelings cannot be gauged by science.

As I stated in my Limitations of Science thread.

You take a man who's alive, and you take another man, cut off the blood to his brain for an extended period of time, and he dies.

This is devolving into a discussion of the limitations of science. What does this have to do with Atheism, which is not accepting the idea that an invisible sky daddy is watching our every thought and deed?

3. the lack of evidence God exists yet I feel otherwise shows insanity or wisdom or that I'm just wrong

Fixed.

As I stated in my Limitations of Science thread.



This is devolving into a discussion of the limitations of science. What does this have to do with Atheism, which is not accepting the idea that an invisible sky daddy is watching our every thought and deed?

you took a shot at my religion, naturally I'm going to defend myself. "Limitations" are just an excuse for "I don't know."

Fixed.

good job.

you took a shot at my religion, naturally I'm going to defend myself.

Not in this thread, I didn't.

Bloodshots reasoning for God's existence.

1. We're not important enough for God to let us know that he exists
2. We have no evidence that God exists.
3. The lack of evidence that God exists is proof that God exists.
QED.

of course you didn't.

"Reason 3: Lack of Convincing Arguments for God’s Existence
[...]
What makes us feel like we're so damn important God has to report to us?


Bloodshots reasoning for God's existence.

1. We're not important enough for God to let us know that he exists
2. We have no evidence that God exists.
3. The lack of evidence that God exists is proof that God exists.
QED.

This is not insulting your religion. It is explicitly stating what you imply.

This is not insulting your religion. It is ignorantly stating what you imply.

fixed

Keep that up and you'll replace xcept68 as the one True Christian at the shoes.

Keep that up and you'll replace xcept68 as the one True Christian at the shoes.

keep it up and you'll blend into the crowd.

Stay on topic, you're dragging me down with you.

tumbleweed

Absolutely. Many people have said this very thing before, Sam Harris being one of the more notable. The worst part about atheism is that Atheist devolves into a label and the unintelligent or the unwilling use it as a weasel word so they don't have to understand the concept.

I disagree. While it is annoying that people misundersand the worst, the most dangerous thing of the label is the identity it gives to people who call themselves "atheists". You become an atheist and suddenly you belong to a particular species of person who adheres to a number of core beliefs. You respond as a group and demonize those who do not belong. You read the texts of certain thinkers who identify themselves as atheists and take their writing to be, if not scripture, then something carrying great authority like the sutras of Buddhism.

The real threat is not what others think of atheism, but what atheists think of themselves when the label exists.

the lack of evidence God exists yet I feel otherwise shows insanity or wisdom

Is there a lack of evidence? You stated in (2) that there is evidence--that which you feel. Evidence need not be publicly available to be evidence.

hey Lancaster... Maybe I will go check it out, Maybe take some pictures or something. Carrollton is very close by.

I can post them on here when I get done.

xcept68: do give us a full report. I wonder if they sing atheist hymms?

thinking people who dont believe in god are all atheists is dumb. I don't like going to church, so im not going to go to a group meeting weekly to say how much i dont like going to church. Thats just as bad as going to church i think. I am open to good ideas. I dont have a religion so i dont have to ignore things which a religion may condemn.

This atheist church is composed of ex pastors and ministers who no longer believe in God, but miss the regular Sunday meeting and discussion that you get in church. So they started their own group.

discussion about beliefs is great. I think religious dogmatism hinders this greatly. Argue about what is right and wrong not why things are right and wrong. If youre going to argue the why you need to bring something more to the table than "god says so."

your gods can suck my cock.

discussion about beliefs is great. I think religious dogmatism hinders this greatly. Argue about what is right and wrong not why things are right and wrong. If youre going to argue the why you need to bring something more to the table than "god says so."

but right and wrong is different to everyone, we desire both. "Why" is what's driving all of our opinions.

but right and wrong is different to everyone

Explain.

Explain.

some people think drinking is wrong, some people don't think fornication is wrong, some think being gay is wrong ect.

but right and wrong is different to everyone, we desire both. "Why" is what's driving all of our opinions.

read the second sentence of my post. Why needs more than god said so. Wrong is determined by wisdom and experience. Reason is why laws are made, not divinity.

some people think drinking is wrong, some people don't think fornication is wrong, some think being gay is wrong ect.

I think the guy in your sig throwing up devil horns is a wrong act. Well i would if i was christian. Certainly christians think hailing satan is wrong.

I think the guy in your sig throwing up devil horns is a wrong act. Well i would if i was christian. Certainly christians think hailing satan is wrong.

I find wisdom in darkness, relating and understanding. We can not know right without understanding wrong. We consist of both no matter which we choose. Do some research on what the horns stand for, I assure it's not Satan.

read the second sentence of my post. Why needs more than god said so. Wrong is determined by wisdom and experience. Reason is why laws are made, not divinity.

Wisdom and experience vary from person to person.

I find wisdom in darkness, relating and understanding. We can not know right without understanding wrong. We consist of both no matter which we choose. Do some research on what the horns stand for, I assure it's not Satan.

This has several variations as well. I'm just giving you a hard time. But if you seriously think the average slipknot fan thinks there is deeper meaning to that sign youre giving our teenage society more credit than they deserve.

Wisdom and experience vary from person to person.

This is why having one person in charge is a bad idea.

This is why having one person in charge is a bad idea.

a group of people can be just as corrupt as one.

This has several variations as well. I'm just giving you a hard time. But if you seriously think the average slipknot fan thinks there is deeper meaning to that sign youre giving our teenage society more credit than they deserve.

I'm not disputing that, just personally I can relate to alot of the lyrics and it's a reminder of the concequences of going down that road.

I see your point though, it is kind of ironic. but it's like labeling a pot head as a moron. Just a stereotype.

rock on my friend, rock on..

a group of people can be just as corrupt as one.

Are you an anarchist? Or are you trying to make petty arguments? I knew thats what your response was gonna be. Don't turn into another evil. This section of the forum has become very petty.

Yes a group can be corrupt, but a group has less of a chance for corruption than a single person.

I don't think Bloodshot is an anarchist. An anarchistic society is one where people are free to cooperate with each other without the interference of rules. As a christian, Bloodshot would probably find this lack of restrictive rules quite scary.

but there is but one truth. things that cannot be anything but true. We all need air to survive, light, sustinence, etc... they are all true, always. Just as God is true always. You can never get around this fact. No matter what clouded views you have.

Are you an anarchist? Or are you trying to make petty arguments? I knew thats what your response was gonna be. Don't turn into another evil. This section of the forum has become very petty.

Yes a group can be corrupt, but a group has less of a chance for corruption than a single person.

less chance? Are not those who are invited to join an elite group expected to conform to the way of things? We don't know who and what's corrupt, expect the worst and hope for the best.

I don't think Bloodshot is an anarchist. An anarchistic society is one where people are free to cooperate with each other without the interference of rules. As a christian, Bloodshot would probably find this lack of restrictive rules quite scary.

he has to label me as something, makes it easier to point his finger.

but there is but one truth. things that cannot be anything but true. We all need air to survive, light, sustinence, etc... they are all true, always. Just as God is true always. You can never get around this fact. No matter what clouded views you have.

This means nothing to an unbeliver. The reason I but heads around here so much is I try and relate it to real world circumstances that all too often contradict their beliefs.

I've learned alot from your posts, but that's just religious jibber jabber unfortunately to alot of people. From what I can gather you have a good recollection and understanding of the bible. Something I really need to work on, I think it's funny how my beliefs do not contradict Christ's teachings, his influence is more valueable than his word.

less chance? Are not those who are invited to join an elite group expected to conform to the way of things? We don't know who and what's corrupt, expect the worst and hope for the best.

easier to corrupt one than many.

easier to corrupt one than many.

what I'm implying is that the many may already be corrupt. They've put in a position of great power and greed is a natural urge. Alot of great men in politics have been assinated, I'd assume by not conforming.

I'm not saying everyone is corrupt, I just think it's incorrect to not be open to the possibility.

he has to label me as something, makes it easier to point his finger.

i asked if you were an anarchist that is all. I did not label you as anything. I asked a question and gave you a chance to respond before i made an assumption. When did I point my finger, Evil? Oh sorry, wrong name, but your new ability to put words into my mouth has me confused.

Are you an anarchist? Or are you trying to make petty arguments? I knew thats what your response was gonna be. Don't turn into another evil. This section of the forum has become very petty.

Yes a group can be corrupt, but a group has less of a chance for corruption than a single person.

implying I'm making a petty arguement and I'm like evil I'd call that pointing a finger. I don't put words in your mouth, you just forget what you said.

implying I'm making a petty arguement and I'm like evil I'd call that pointing a finger. I don't put words in your mouth, you just forget what you said.

When did i call you an anarchist? You said i labeled you, I did not. That would be putting words into my mouth.

I do not think laws should come from divinity since not everyone believes in the same God. If this was the case christians should follow the 600 or so laws that God gave the jews. It is the same God that christians worship.

When did i call you an anarchist? You said i labeled you, I did not. That would be putting words into my mouth.

I do not think laws should come from divinity since not everyone believes in the same God. If this was the case christians should follow the 600 or so laws that God gave the jews. It is the same God that christians worship.

What you said was insulting, that's what I do when I point a finger.

personal choice, doing so shows you can conform to something that requires discipline. I'd imagine a God would respect that.

What you said was insulting, that's what I do when I point a finger.

personal choice, doing so shows you can conform to something that requires discipline. I'd imagine a God would respect that.

I am not you. I wouldn't even know at what i would be pointing. All im trying to say is the laws that count are man made. Dishonor your father or mother and nothing happens. Sleep with a 16 year old (which the bible does not forbid) and your ass is going to jail.

If you personally to choose to follow the God of Abraham shouldn't you follow all his rules?

If you personally to choose to follow the God of Abraham shouldn't you follow all his rules?

Yes indeedie, but I desire both. Working on putting my desires second, far from perfect.

what I'm implying is that the many may already be corrupt. They've put in a position of great power and greed is a natural urge. Alot of great men in politics have been assinated, I'd assume by not conforming.

I'm not saying everyone is corrupt, I just think it's incorrect to not be open to the possibility.

I don't think Judoka is suggesting that one abdicate personal responsibility or conscience in lieu of a groups decisions. He is merely saying that when structuring a society, a group increases the likelihood of dissenting voices wishing to oppose corruption. Certainly it is possible that all could be corrupt. The point is that other people DO check one another.

I don't think Judoka is suggesting that one abdicate personal responsibility or conscience in lieu of a groups decisions. He is merely saying that when structuring a society, a group increases the likelihood of dissenting voices wishing to oppose corruption. Certainly it is possible that all could be corrupt. The point is that other people DO check one another.

im glad at least someone reading my posts passed reading comprehension.

feelings cannot be gauged by science.




Feelings are chemical reactions in your brain.

Feelings are chemical reactions in your brain.

That's a really unromantic way of looking at life:wah:



although true

^ Reality is very romantic IMHO.