Ask an atheist

[Clement]

I think for most of "us", it's not about some choice we've made between having faith and not having faith for the sake of being uplifted. There's actually no choice to be made. I've always been quite a logical and scientific person and the simple fact is that I have never, ever seen any sort of real evidence for the existence of any sort of God, other than other people saying there is one. And that's just not enough to make me believe in one. That coupled with all the strong evidence for lots and lots of things that fly in the face of most religious beliefs. It's like asking someone why they made a choice between believing they have a brain in their head and believing they have magic unicorn tears in their head - it's not going to be about which makes them feel better, it's just about which is patently obvious and which is absurd.

Patently obvious? absurd? a rather grand claim for a human gnat that knows next to nothing about the physical properties of the universe and our theatre of reality wouldn't you say? we can't even cure the common cold, by all means i accept that some things appear to be more likely than others, but such arrogance from a mere human is laughable.

Tell you what, since you know so much and can see that even the idea of an intelligent creator is very obviously absurd, tell us how the universe came into existence, how it sprang from nothing to something, whether the universe is finite or infinite and whether or not other dimensions exist, and if so how many there are, once you've done that and proved the answers are correct we can start on the really difficult questions.

I don't believe in god because of the suffering people go through, and the nature construct which is absolutely sickening in the way it works, but even i don't have a big enough head to claim i know what "didn't" create the universe.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think asking me to explain the origins and nature of the universe, and to think that this request is any sort of reasonable retort, is also absurd.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't believe in god because of the suffering people go through, and the nature construct which is absolutely sickening in the way it works, but even i don't have a big enough head to claim i know what "didn't" create the universe.

Well then you're not an atheist.

 

[Clement]

I think asking me to explain the origins and nature of the universe, and to think that this request is any sort of reasonable retort, is also absurd.

So no answers then? i didn't think so.

Yet you feel qualified to say that my question is

like asking someone why they made a choice between believing they have a brain in their head and believing they have magic unicorn tears in their head

and also

it's not going to be about which makes them feel better, it's just about which is patently obvious and which is absurd.

I think those kind of (rather rude if i may say so) statements are obviously out of your league, as they are for all human beings, because frankly, we know jack about our theatre of reality, as you have shown by not answering a single question i asked, which i'd expect anyone to have knowledge of before they start claiming they know what kind of things definitely "didn't" create the universe.

 

[Clement]

Well then you're not an atheist.

i cannot claim to be 100% atheist either however because i think there is still a chance that the universe was made by something intelligent.

i never said i was, if you had read my first post you'd know that, i said i lost my faith in the biblical god, but still felt a creator was a possiblity.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Of course I haven't answered a single question you asked, because you asked me to explain how the universe began and to define its very nature. I can very much understand you saying you think I was rude, or that you disagree with what I said, but if your only response is to demand I suddenly become the most intelligent and knowledgeable being who ever lived, and to refuse to engage with anything else I say until I can do that, then that really is absurd and there's no point me saying anything else until you scale your demands down to something a little more reasonable.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

i never said i was, if you had read my first post you'd know that, i said i lost my faith in the biblical god, but still felt a creator was a possiblity.

Well I would have done that, but even coming on here once I day I usually find that any new topic is already on its 20th page the first time I see it and so reading an entire thread through is not really an option. I usually read the opening page and then skip to the last few if I find it of interest.

 

[Clement]

Of course I haven't answered a single question you asked, because you asked me to explain how the universe began and to define its very nature. I can very much understand you saying you think I was rude, or that you disagree with what I said, but if your only response is to demand I suddenly become the most intelligent and knowledgeable being who ever lived, and to refuse to engage with anything else I say until I can do that, then that really is absurd and there's no point me saying anything else until you scale your demands down to something a little more reasonable.

I was just intrigued to find a human being that definitely knew that the universe had not been started by an intelligent being, i assumed that if you knew that then you'd logically know how the universe had sprung into existence from nothing in order for you to discount that admittedly small possiblity so brusquely.

 

[Akka]

All the wonderful people i've met in my life i'l never see again, my memories and thoughts will be gone forever, it is incredibly painful to think about and i do so regularly not on purpose, but because thats the way my mind wanders since i lost my faith, it's not something i suffered from when i had faith in god.

Well, yes, oblivion is certainly quite frightening, I don't deny it. But it's all the more the reason to actually make your life worth it rather than just waiting for some imaginary happy ever-after.
As said above, things don't need to last forever to be nice. You can start to think about what would make your life worth it an do it, rather than just focusing on how things won't be eternal.

All i'm saying is that i was happier when i believed in God, heck i was much happier, and that the "truth" is not even close an adequate substitute for the peace of mind i used to enjoy, i don't feel set free at all, i feel like i've been crushed.

It's said that ignorance is bliss. Maybe some people prefer not to know. I've always been on a "blue pill" kind of guy (or was it red pill ? The one who makes Neo emerge from the illusionary matrix), and I prefer to face reality than live in illusion.

I do no about the unicorns but there is definitely sort of people who may be little disgusted with the world as it is or even with something in their own lives (i am one of them) and then they just start considering other possibilities...

That's just escapism. I can also find the world less than likable and think "what if it was all rainbows and unicorns ?", but it would still be only a dream and would not actually make the world a better place.

Having dreams is good. Mixing them with reality is not.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I was just intrigued to find a human being that definitely knew that the universe had not been started by an intelligent being, i assumed that if you knew that then you'd logically know how the universe had sprung into existence from nothing in order for you to discount that admittedly small possiblity so brusquely.

You're just being ridiculous. The thread is called "ask an atheist", you asked an open question to atheists, and I (being an atheist) answered you with my take on the question. The important point I was trying to make was that you were asking the wrong question, given that you seemed to be assuming atheists had made a choice to not believe, and that the reward for this choice was some form of satisfaction or reassurance that you wanted defining. I was pointing out that (in my case at least) there was no choice to make, it just grows naturally out of ones outlook on life. And, no matter how rude or offensive you find the fact, for anyone who is truly an atheist then in their eyes the concepts of God, magic unicorn tears, or the Great Green Arkleseizure are pretty much interchangeable and are all silly notions to not take seriously, regardless of whether they've just been made up as a joke or if millions of people have believed in them for thousands of years.

Now, I would assume that "knowing" (i.e. believing with every fibre of your being) that the universe wasn't created by God, is pretty much the basic definition of what atheism is. So now you're suddenly demanding that I justify the entire concept of atheism by insisting I justify this concept. Which I suppose is all well and good, but it's a million miles away from what you asked in the first place, which was simply why did I "choose" to become an atheist and what do I get out of it. I believe I answered your original question to the best of my abilities, and at the moment I have no real interest in defending the entire concept of atheism for your entertainment.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't believe in god because of the suffering people go through, and the nature construct which is absolutely sickening in the way it works, but even i don't have a big enough head to claim i know what "didn't" create the universe.

Speaking personally here, for me that wouldn't be a good enough reason. It does put lots of questionmarks on the existence of a God which is good, even infinitely so.

My reason for being an atheist is more simple than that. There is no evidence for any God. And there is none necessary. The answer: I don't know, is more honest than filling in the blanks. Or even worse filling in the blanks with more: I don't knows and claim superior knowledge.

For instance, Creationists claim to know the answer how the world came into existence. God made it. But when you ask simple questions you always end up an I don't know. Why did God need dust to create Adam when he can create a whole Universe out of nothing. You might see people come up with rationalisations, which are far-fetched and always, always arbitrary, baseless and with a foregone conclusion in mind. Or the well known cop-out, Gods ways are mysterious. So, in actual fact, they don't know either. Except they say God did it, but I don't know how. There are not more answers to be gained by being a theists in these matters. The only credible claim to more answers are of a personal spiritual nature. How the universe came into existence is not part of that.

But, coming back to your problem Clement, have you ever tried to imagine eternity? To me it sounds more horrible than nothingness. Think about it. Could you, being yourself imagine living 1.000 years? how about 1.000.000? You'd go nuts. Now, if this soul of yours would not go nuts in eternal blissful paradise, how is that soul you when you react differently to a set of circumstances?

 

[El_Machinae]

And, no matter how rude or offensive you find the fact, for anyone who is truly an atheist then in their eyes the concepts of God, magic unicorn tears, or the Great Green Arkleseizure are pretty much interchangeable and are all silly notions to not take seriously, regardless of whether they've just been made up as a joke or if millions of people have believed in them for thousands of years.

Hmmn, no, I don't agree. And I'm pretty atheist!
(and there's no need to be rude about it, either. It can be possible to emote without using invectives)

 

[Theov]

I was just intrigued to find a human being that definitely knew that the universe had not been started by an intelligent being, i assumed that if you knew that then you'd logically know how the universe had sprung into existence from nothing in order for you to discount that admittedly small possiblity so brusquely.

Why do you think the only alternative to "sprung from nothing" has to be an intelligent designer? (who made the universe from nothing, right?).
Also, bringing up that ID brings up more questions. Who is it, where did the matter come from. And who created that designer (since the original thesis was that "nothing can spring from nothing").
And no, the scientific consensus now isn't that the universe came from nothing. Most likely all energy and matter was concentrated. How and before that, we don't know.
But 'oh, god did it' would be a cop out.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hmmn, no, I don't agree. And I'm pretty atheist!
(and there's no need to be rude about it, either. It can be possible to emote without using invectives)

I'm only giving my opinion (as I was asked to do) and, as was said before, there is no atheist consensus, so by all means give your opinion too.

However, I will certainly argue about who is being rude to whom here. The only "rude" thing I said in my initial answer was the phrase "patently absurd", which I used to describe something that I genuinely find to be patently absurd. I'm not trying to be rude when I say that, and it's certainly not aimed against anyone in a nasty way, it's just a simple statement of my beliefs. In response to this I basically get mocked and told that I am "not qualified" to express such opinions. But then I suppose rudeness is in the eye of the beholder.

But essentially, as an atheist, I do find the concept of God to be silly and absurd, and I shouldn't have to sugar-coat that in case it offends somebody. Obviously it would be wrong of me, and rude, to go around challenging Christians and forcing my views down their throats, but in a thread about atheism where atheists are being asked to expound their views on atheism, I think it's entirely appropriate. It's not a personal attack on anyone, it's just me honestly voicing my opinion.

 

[Clement]

You're just being ridiculous.

That ad-hominem won't help your argument, you have to show how i'm being ridiculous, you made a claim and said what i've already quoted you as saying, and i asked you some big questions that i would expect anyone to know for them to make those claims, you say the idea of an intelligent creator is absurd, so very obviously you must know that the universe was not created by an intelligent being, yet you say you don't know how the universe was created, so how can you back, or even attempt to make such a claim?

The thread is called "ask an atheist", you asked an open question to atheists, and I (being an atheist) answered you with my take on the question.

You answered me in an insulting and throw-away fashion, i asked you some questions in return.

The important point I was trying to make was that you were asking the wrong question, given that you seemed to be assuming atheists had made a choice to not believe, and that the reward for this choice was some form of satisfaction or reassurance that you wanted defining. I was pointing out that (in my case at least) there was no choice to make, it just grows naturally out of ones outlook on life.

Now that i can understand, but my questions to you still stand, i expect anyone who knows 100% that an intelligent creator did not make the universe to know how the universe came into existence, otherwise they can't fully discount that possiblity no matter how unlikely it may be, it's simple logic.

And, no matter how rude or offensive you find the fact, for anyone who is truly an atheist then in their eyes the concepts of God, magic unicorn tears, or the Great Green Arkleseizure are pretty much interchangeable and are all silly notions to not take seriously regardless of whether they've just been made up as a joke or if millions of people have believed in them for thousands of years.

I don't find your assumption of that fact being true offensive, i found the way you delivered it unecessarily patronising.

I understand well the concept of russel's tea pot, it's a useful defence against those who are incapable of seeing the difference in percentage chances between a tea pot we can't see revolving around the sun being in existence, and an intelligent creator being in existence.

The percentage chances of both these items existing are a matter of argument, and not everyone will agree that the chances of a tea pot existing as it revolves around the sun are the same as the chances for a creator being in existence once life's mysterious and un-answered questions are taken into account.

Now, I would assume that "knowing" (i.e. believing with every fibre of your being) that the universe wasn't created by God, is pretty much the basic definition of what atheism is.

Actually i think there are different types of atheists, from those who believe that there is definitely no god, to those who think the chances are so small it's highly unlikely, it is the former i find myself having problems with, the "know-it-alls", not the latter.

So now you're suddenly demanding that I justify the entire concept of atheism by insisting I justify this concept. Which I suppose is all well and good, but it's a million miles away from what you asked in the first place. which was simply why did I "choose" to become an atheist and what do I get out of it. I believe I answered your original question to the best of my abilities, and at the moment I have no real interest in defending the entire concept of atheism for your entertainment.

I didn't demand anything from you, i simply answered your answer to me which was in fairness, somewhat of a throw-away and needlessly rude answer, you misunderstand me if you think i find this entertaining, i lost my faith in god because of how i see the world suffer, but i can't logically discount the possiblity of something intelligent having kick-started the universe, even if it is highly unlikely because i wasn't there when it happened, and so far no-one else knows either.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That ad-hominem won't help your argument, you have to show how i'm being ridiculous.

I did. I explained how you asked an initial question and then, when you didn't like my answer, rather than challenging my basic point or asking me to expand on it, you simply decided to demand that I explain the entire universe to you and justify the central point of atheism before you'd engage with anything I said. This is why I said you were being ridiculous, and I have also already said that this is why I said you were being ridiculous.

And you're basically doing the same thing again now, by basically pretending that I haven't given reasons for why you're being ridiculous just because you don't like or agree with the reasons that I definitely gave and explained. So are you now going to just quote the first sentence of this post and pretend I haven't said any of that for a second time? And yes, I am being rude now.

 

[Clement]

I did. I explained how you asked an initial question and then, when you didn't like my answer, rather than challenging my basic point or asking me to expand on it, you simply decided to demand that I explain the entire universe to you and justify the central point of atheism before you'd engage with anything I said. This is why I said you were being ridiculous, and I have also already said that this is why I said you were being ridiculous.

And you're basically doing the same thing again now, by basically pretending that I haven't given reasons for why you're being ridiculous just because you don't like or agree with the reasons that I definitely gave and explained. So are you now going to just quote the first sentence of this post and pretend I haven't said any of that for a second time? And yes, I am being rude now.

I asked you how you know that the idea of an intelligent creator is absurd and 100% false if you don't even know how the universe came into being from nothing, seems like a fair enough question to me, had you said you found it absurd and highly unlikely we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Now that i can understand, but my questions to you still stand, i expect anyone who knows 100% that an intelligent creator did not make the universe to know how the universe came into existence, otherwise they can't fully discount that possiblity no matter how unlikely it may be, it's simple logic.

This is a different question to the one I was answering though, and it's one I'm not really interested in answering because I have no desire to "convert" anyone. I'm sure there are already lots of posts in this thread about the burden of proof and whatnot, so there's no real point in me saying it all again. Technically I will agree that are correct in that it can't be 100% discounted, but that isn't the point. The point is that there isn't the slightest suggestion to think that there might have been an intelligent creator, and so whether or not this can be 100% discounted is a question that should only be of interest to philosophers or other people who enjoy tying themselves in mental knots for no real purpose. I can't 100% discount that the universe wasn't started by a farting goat that lived in the previously existing universe that was made of orange peel, but I don't think you'd waste your breath trying to make me justify myself if I talked as if I knew that that didn't happen. You might even be willing to consider it as "patently absurd" yourself, even without 100% proof.

From a scientific point of view, the initial question to ask is not "can this be 100% discounted", but "is there any reason why I should even suspect this to be the case". Only if the answer to that is "yes" do you even bother to start to investigate it. Unless, as previously stated, you like to debate questions like the one about trees in the forest falling when no-one's around. Interesting little philosophical debates if you like that sort of thing, but not really much to do with actually working out how the world works.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I asked you how you know that the idea of an intelligent creator is absurd and 100% false if you don't even know how the universe came into being from nothing, seems like a fair enough question to me, had you said you found it absurd and highly unlikely we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Yes but you know I'm an atheist. You shouldn't find it strange that I am certain that no God or intelligent creator exists. You should take that for granted. So when I read your original question (the one I answered) I mentally prefaced it with a silent "as someone who is sure that God doesn't exist, then....", which is why I don't really like that I'm now being asked to explain something that I'd already assumed was taken as read, while the answer to the actual question is seemingly being ignored. To my mind, someone who really doesn't think there is likely to be a God, but isn't discounting it entirely, is agnostic. Otherwise there's no real point in having the separate words of agnostic and atheist.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I'm sorry but I don't get what you're trying to say gorakshanat

Oh, nevermind...

Here is Swami Vivekananda talking on two rather special religions:

How can the Hindu, whose whole fabric of thought centres in God, believe in Buddhism which is agnostic, or in Jainism which is atheistic?
The Buddhists or the Jains do not depend upon God; but the whole force of their religion is directed to the great central truth in every religion, to evolve a God out of man. They have not seen the Father, but they have seen the Son. and he thath seen the Son hath seen the father also.

Any thoughts, brothers atheists?