Why are you atheist?

[Godwynn]

I have seen the coming of the glory of the Lord.

I have also seen Jesus trample the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.

Unfortunately he let loose the lightning from his terrible swift sword.

He kept on marching.

 

[Ekolite]

I was originally an atheist. My parents never particularly directed me one way or the other, although I believe they both have vague religious beliefs.

However, this changed when I realised that actually, the idea of a ''God'' wasn't neccessarily as ridiculous as I'd once thought. I realised that to be a Christian, you didn't have to adhere to any specific denomination. You don't have to try to bend your own beliefs to fit theirs. Instead, I realised that as far as religions go, I could essentially have my own branch of faith. Religion and belief are very personal things, and really it is up to you to decide which bits you believe in - ''pick and choose'' Christianity, as I've heard it called.

The idea of God as presented by the Catholics appalled me, some almighty being made up of a combination of the Father (God is apparently made partially of God), the Son, and the ''Holy Spirit'', some man in the sky who plans out our lives for us. However, I realised that I didn't have to believe that to believe in God, so I came to terms with my own interpretation of God.

I also realised that I didn't have to believe that jesus was the son of God, or in an afterlife, or in the holy trinity, none of which work well with my interpretation of God.

 

[lovett]

I have yet to see any proof of the existence of any supernatural being.

i do not believe in the Christian god, because i have no empirical evidence for his existence.

I became disillusioned with religion. There's no proof for it.

So the you guys have proof or empirical evidence for every concept you believe?

I mean, I'm fairly confident that you all believe in other minds, the external world, the validity of logic and induction so on and so forth. Do you have justification for these things?

If not, why demand it of God?

 

[Bei1052]

I have seen the coming of the glory of the Lord.

I have also seen Jesus trample the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.

Unfortunately he let loose the lightning from his terrible swift sword.

He kept on marching.

I lol'ed.

 

[warpus]

So the you guys have proof or empirical evidence for every concept you believe?

I mean, I'm fairly confident that you all believe in other minds, the external world, the validity of logic and induction so on and so forth. Do you have justification for these things?

If not, why demand it of God?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I would guess.

 

[AesronDrosseli]

Originally this question was aimed at atheists, but with the addition of the "why are you non-religious" thread (you guys crack me up) I don't see why anyone here who isn't religious can't answer.

 

[gugalpm]

I was originally an atheist. My parents never particularly directed me one way or the other, although I believe they both have vague religious beliefs.

However, this changed when I realised that actually, the idea of a ''God'' wasn't neccessarily as ridiculous as I'd once thought. I realised that to be a Christian, you didn't have to adhere to any specific denomination. You don't have to try to bend your own beliefs to fit theirs. Instead, I realised that as far as religions go, I could essentially have my own branch of faith. Religion and belief are very personal things, and really it is up to you to decide which bits you believe in - ''pick and choose'' Christianity, as I've heard it called.

The idea of God as presented by the Catholics appalled me, some almighty being made up of a combination of the Father (God is apparently made partially of God), the Son, and the ''Holy Spirit'', some man in the sky who plans out our lives for us. However, I realised that I didn't have to believe that to believe in God, so I came to terms with my own interpretation of God.

I also realised that I didn't have to believe that jesus was the son of God, or in an afterlife, or in the holy trinity, none of which work well with my interpretation of God.

Of course you do. To be a Christian means to fully believe specific dogmas - linked to a denomination, or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Ekolite]

Christianity is a pretty open-ended religion as they go. I am a Christian, but not a Catholic or a Protestant, Christianity is a religion and religion is nothing other then a definition of our beliefs. The only denomination I've come across that is fairly similar to my own beliefs is Unitarianism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So the you guys have proof or empirical evidence for every concept you believe?

I mean, I'm fairly confident that you all believe in other minds, the external world, the validity of logic and induction so on and so forth. Do you have justification for these things?

If not, why demand it of God?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I would guess.

Only if you believe that all truth only comes through science and its methodology.

 

[Newbunkle]

So the you guys have proof or empirical evidence for every concept you believe?

I mean, I'm fairly confident that you all believe in other minds, the external world, the validity of logic and induction so on and so forth. Do you have justification for these things?

If not, why demand it of the giant green space squirrel that lives on Uranus that farted out the universe after a bad curry?

Fixed

 

[AesronDrosseli]

Only if you believe that all truth only comes through science and its methodology.

I think that's something else that's gonna come up sooner or later, whether truth can be derived solely from the scientific methodology and/or logic.

 

[warpus]

Only if you believe that all truth only comes through science and its methodology.

Not really.

If I believed in magic, and my friend told me that he trained his elephant to poop gold, I'd want proof, cause that's a pretty extraordinary claim, even if other magical things were commonplace.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not really.

If I believed in magic, and my friend told me that he trained his elephant to poop gold, I'd want proof, cause that's a pretty extraordinary claim, even if other magical things were commonplace.

So, are you saying that the "proof" required is question and context dependent?

How do you decide what requires scientific proof and what doesn't?

 

[ArneHD]

Why god? There is simply no reason to believe that there exists such an entity.

 

[lovett]

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I would guess.

I'd say induction was pretty extraordinary. Not that the concept of 'extraordinary' is a very useful one really.

 

[warpus]

So, are you saying that the "proof" required is question and context dependent?

How do you decide what requires scientific proof and what doesn't?

1. I didn't say scientific proof initially
2. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof required, sounds like a good rule to me

 

[tycoonist]

Therefore, am I right to say that "personal revelations" to you simply represent nothing more than delusional thinking and feeling?

yeah. if you see a guy win the lottery, you don't say "oh, he's been blessed by some higher power", you say "oh, he got lucky". all of these so-called "personal revelations" can explained by coincidence, luck and the possibility of the improbable.

So the you guys have proof or empirical evidence for every concept you believe?

yeah, i'd say i have empirical evidence that everything i know to exist, exists. i don't have any irrational beliefs that i can think of, which i know is unusual, but its the way my mind works. unless i have empirical evidence of something, i am very skeptical about it.

I mean, I'm fairly confident that you all believe in other minds, the external world, the validity of logic and induction so on and so forth. Do you have justification for these things?

If not, why demand it of God?

i have no idea what you mean when you say that you are confident that i believe in "other minds" or "the external world". please explain.

as for the validity of logic and induction, i have plenty of justification for knowing when an argument makes sense or not.

so yeah, i will demand evidence before i believe in a God that is just as likely to not exist as to exist.

 

[ArneHD]

So the you guys have proof or empirical evidence for every concept you believe?

I mean, I'm fairly confident that you all believe in other minds, the external world, the validity of logic and induction so on and so forth. Do you have justification for these things?

If not, why demand it of God?

Because we can observe the outside world. This of course relies on our senses being reliable. If our senses are not reliable, then everything collapses into solipsism.

This also goes for logic: we can use it to create a testable hypothesis, and then compare it to the observable world. So too with induction. If they match the observable world, then they work.

 

[warpus]

I'd say induction was pretty extraordinary. Not that the concept of 'extraordinary' is a very useful one really.

Induction isn't an extraordinary claim... is it?

edit: I probably didn't get what you were trying to say

 

[lovett]

I have no idea what you mean when you say that you are confident that i believe in "other minds" or "the external world". please explain.

as for the validity of logic and induction, i have plenty of justification for knowing when an argument makes sense or not.

so yeah, i will demand evidence before i believe in a God that is just as likely to not exist as to exist.

They're philosophical terms. The problem of other minds relates to our belief other people have the same internal experiences we do. That they have minds like us, rather then being philosophical zombies. By the external world one means the idea that what we perceive exists; there is a world external to our own mind. I am confident you believe in other minds and the external world because almost everyone does.

Given that you don't know what the terms mean 'right off the bat' as it were I am also reasonably confident that you are not particularly cognizant about the issues involved. That is to say, you don't have solid justification for these beliefs. Yet you demand solid justification for a belief in God. See the problem?

Because we can observe the outside world. This of course relies on our senses being reliable. If our senses are not reliable, then everything collapses into solipsism.

This also goes for logic: we can use it to create a testable hypothesis, and then compare it to the observable world. So too with induction. If they match the observable world, then they work.

The fact that something 'collapses into solipsism' isn't an objection in and of itself.

As per logic and induction, you seem to be alluding to an inductive argument for the validity of them both. I.e. They have worked in the past (we have tested our past hypothesis's with them) so they will work in the future. Clearly one can't really justify induction through an inductive argument; it's circular logic.

Induction isn't an extraordinary claim... is it?

Yes.

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'extraordinary' but induction is an unjustified process that has an all-encompassing effect on our lives. It isn'ty clear how it differs materially from religion.