Why are there atheists?

[Manco]

I believe they call it the anthropological fallacy.

 

[The Dude]

COME ON!!!! Scientology? Really?
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Scientology&ie=utf-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1#q=Scientology%20south%20park&emb=0

I don't care. There are tens of thousands of people who believe in it. Obviously it has some merit.

You believe in a creature that is all knowing, all capable, all present, all loving and all encompassing... yet you think scientology is ridiculous?

EDIT: Btw, very interesting video. Scientology is clearly disturbing and sickening. Yet at the same time, I have this lingering feeling that they do have what it takes to make it big and that in 200 to 300 years from now, all of the things you see in videos such as these will have been shoveled underneath heaps of propaganda.

One might wonder if Jesus Christ's ascension to his "destiny as messiah" was any different from L. Ron Hubbard's and if the conflicts surrounding the foundation of christianity were really that much different from what scientology is going through today.

 

[KingOfTheIsles]

Anyway, I find two scenarios the more likely:

1. People are born with an innate concept of God. Evident by the concept of deity in every culture of every age across the globe.

2. People are born with what John Locke called a tabula rasa, a blank slate. People are not born with any concepts of anything at all. Every personality trait is a direct result of life experiences.

This is quite interesting actually, there is clearly a lot of things that are "hardwired" into the brain already at birth, such as the ability to learn language in humans or the diving reflex, or any number of instincts you might see in animals. Obviously Locke was an empiricist, so would naturally favour the idea of the blank slate at birth, what with the emphasis on a posteriori knowledge as opposed to a priori. Still, there is ample evidence of what might be termed a priori knowledge in human existence, although there is no possible way to know one way or the other (unless someone can provide a fool-proof test?).

Personally, I think the concept of God isn't necessarily innate, but is an inevitable result of the application of human intelligence in a pre-scientific age. It is something to sate peoples' intellectual curiosity; humans ask questions about the world and need answers, the easiest answer is God. But hey, that's just my thoughts on the matter.

I would go as far as to say that atheists are smarter than theists.

Not really. Even if you think that the Atheist position is logically and intellectually superior, it is quite possible for someone to be an Atheist for the wrong reasons too. I don't see why this kind of Atheist is particularly clever, if he just does it for reasons of peer pressure or whatever. Whilst I've yet to meet a christian who can make a clear, coherent case for their religion yet, I've met very few Atheists who fully understand their position either.

The chances of life just beginning on earth is like unfathomable, and the chances of humans evolving from primordial soup is even unfathomabler.

I think this is more Lack of Imagination fallacy than the Anthropological fallacy. Combined with a healthy dose of vague appeal to unspecified odds. Do you know what the chances of life forming are? If not, how do you know that they are incredibly long? Wait, actually the second argument could be construed as the Anthropological fallacy, I guess.

About the memories, you should always account for the fact that a very large part of your memories never actually happened. Memories are not like a recording device that play them back at will, it's more like your brain reconstructs everything every time you try to recall it. Quite often however these reconstructions are very flawed, or worse, they're not based on anything at all. They just didn't happen.

Exactly. People seem to believe that memory is this magical, impartial, infallible thing, when in reality it is under constant influence by a plethora of external stimuli, such as other peoples' recollections, our own expectations, and vagueness being completed with something more precise. It is quite simple to construct a false memory within someone's mind, particularly if it is entirely consistent with their expectations and is of no great consequence to them.

 

[Nutsack]

Not really. Even if you think that the Atheist position is logically and intellectually superior, it is quite possible for someone to be an Atheist for the wrong reasons too. I don't see why this kind of Atheist is particularly clever, if he just does it for reasons of peer pressure or whatever. Whilst I've yet to meet a christian who can make a clear, coherent case for their religion yet, I've met very few Atheists who fully understand their position either.

Remember that there are people who are atheists simply because they haven't been exposed to any religious preachings (this could perhaps also be evidence that babies are born atheist).

Certainly the atheist who is only atheist to be a "rebel" or for peer pressure has not throughly thought about the subject at hand, and is therefore in what we were talking about not "smart". Take what I type right now with a grain of salt. Although I didn't imply it, I was mostly speaking about people who have given thought to this subject.

 

[Sadreddine]

It is something to sate peoples' intellectual curiosity; humans ask questions about the world and need answers, the easiest answer is God. But hey, that's just my thoughts on the matter.

^ this.

A human being born completely alone will most certainly attribute the unknown, and himself, to a superior intelligence, a creator. He will most likely attribute natural phenomena to a superior being's will. A human being, having intelligence, does naturally assume there is another intelligence apart from his that cause the things he observes in his environment, even if he can't see it.

Thus the obsession with the "unseen" since the beginning of our race's existence (a trait that has been commonly abused and exploited by the diverse castes of "priests", or "intermediaries" humanity has had to suffer). Claiming atheism is our "natural state" means disregarding our intellectual development as a whole since day 1. It's completely absurd.

Ah, the most natural humility...how far does it seem now.

 

[Manco]

You're equating a desire to understand with a desire for a greater being.
A human being born completely alone, without the means to correctly understand everything and then ascribing it to a divine being (because something must explain everything), is not the same as having a natural propensity to believe in a divine being.

 

[Last Roman]

1. If you are right, nobody cares, because you cease to exist.
2. If you are wrong, you burn in a torturous, never ending hell.
3. Why would you not take a precaution, and just believe something? Anything would be preferable to nothing.

why believe in something you know is not true? on the flip side, from a religious perspective, believing just in case isn't true faith anyways, so I'd end up going to hell in either case. So I might as well have fun on earth and not follow some bull religious dogma.

 

[Nutsack]

^ this.

A human being born completely alone will most certainly attribute the unknown, and himself, to a superior intelligence, a creator. He will most likely attribute natural phenomena to a superior being's will. A human being, having intelligence, does naturally assume there is another intelligence apart from his that cause the things he observes in his environment, even if he can't see it.

Thus the obsession with the "unseen" since the beginning of our race's existence (a trait that has been commonly abused and exploited by the diverse castes of "priests", or "intermediaries" humanity has had to suffer). Claiming atheism is our "natural state" means disregarding our intellectual development as a whole since day 1. It's completely absurd.

Ah, the most natural humility...how far does it seem now.

There are many east Asian religions that doesn't deal with God(s) at all. You're completely right that humans have the obsession with the "unseen", simply because we have a part of our brain that seems to deal specifically with this.

The default however is atheism because all religions are spread by word of mouth (seems to be a form of mental virus, except it's an idea and not a DNA code).

 

[Don in the North]

atheists aren't smarter than theists because there is no way life could exist on earth without a higher being. The chances of life just beginning on earth is like unfathomable, and the chances of humans evolving from primordial soup is even unfathomabler. So if you think about it, atheists are really the ones who's percentage of being right are less than theists.

the only person{s} really argueing whos smarter than who, is you and valiant champion, and the fact is the chances of life beginning the way its theorised is a far greater 'chance' than that of your religion being the 'truth', {that is compared to ALL other religions} that being a 0.009 chance. fairly low if you ask me, so if you think about it, its only you whos percentage of being 'right' are less than that of those who adopt an open mind in theories about how the earth, and life, came to be.

There are many east Asian religions that doesn't deal with God(s) at all. You're completely right that humans have the obsession with the "unseen", simply because we have a part of our brain that seems to deal specifically with this.

The default however is atheism because all religions are spread by word of mouth (seems to be a form of mental virus, except it's an idea and not a DNA code).

also there were some egyptian religions back before christianity/end of egptian dominance; that actually believed man came from apes, i cant remember the name out right, but im leaning towards either isis or sekmet (female god) and they didnt actually beleive in any 'god' per se, but in the life of say nature as a god;but it was a while ago that i read about them.

 

[basics]

Re: Atheists are not very smart.

" I was a christian before I woke up. When I was a christian, I knew that there was a story which showed that god wanted us to use all of the gifts that it bestowed on us."??

Tigrul,

And how were you a Christian before you woke up? The reason I ask is because once made regenerate, that is being made Christian, you couldn't possibly wake up to anything else. In other words when once you belonged to the serpent you now belong to God, so I ask again, when was it that you were Christian?

 

[Don in the North]

Re: Atheists are not very smart.

" I was a christian before I woke up. When I was a christian, I knew that there was a story which showed that god wanted us to use all of the gifts that it bestowed on us."??

Tigrul,

And how were you a Christian before you woke up? The reason I ask is because once made regenerate, that is being made Christian, you couldn't possibly wake up to anything else. In other words when once you belonged to the serpent you now belong to God, so I ask again, when was it that you were Christian?

actually i myself was once a christian , when i was 10 i succumbed to the constant inferral that i was going to 'hell'. for about 6 years i believed in god before i read a few history books such as the art of war, homers illiad and a hand ful of others that made me realise what *ALL* religion was.
false, illegitimate attempts to control the 'lesser' populace.
so i disagree with your statement, as do over 500million other former christians, that you 'cannot wake up to anything else'.

 

[Valentin the II]

Re: Atheists are not very smart.

" I was a christian before I woke up. When I was a christian, I knew that there was a story which showed that god wanted us to use all of the gifts that it bestowed on us."??

Tigrul,

And how were you a Christian before you woke up? The reason I ask is because once made regenerate, that is being made Christian, you couldn't possibly wake up to anything else. In other words when once you belonged to the serpent you now belong to God, so I ask again, when was it that you were Christian?

Some peopple say that you cant go back to balony after eating "Fille-Menian".
Well let me tell you this, atheism is more like an 800 gram medium rare steak, it overpowers everything.

 

[Taiji]

As an atheist I am proud to appear stupid to a religous person just as I hope they are proud to look like an idiot to me.

I can appreciate how cowardice must seem smart to a coward, no offence intended.

 

[Shaun]

Re: Atheists are not very smart.

If this thread were in the science forum you might have something but since it isnt keep your "show me science" in the proper forum.

What a pathetic cop out.

 

[Father Jack]

Oh wow. This is a thread filled with fail and a blatant lack of thought.

OP- I cannot decide whether you are a troll trying to stir things up for the lulz (your posts are filled with an obvious lack of thought and they seem to be just stiring) or you are actually, heaven forbid, 100% serious/blind to evidence or fact. As in you dont use it

I am an atheist. If there is a God that sends people to hell because using their supposed god given free will they chose not to believe then that really isnt a deity worth spending time worshipping.

 

[Garrigan]

Just because a famous guy says something doesn't mean it's true.

Too true. Remember, OJ Simpson said he didnt kill her.

 

[Taiji]

Maybe this thread should be renamed "Why did god make atheists?" since the obvious answer to "why are there atheists?" is "because there is no god".

 

[Tigrul]

Re: Atheists are not very smart.

Tigrul,

And how were you a Christian before you woke up? The reason I ask is because once made regenerate, that is being made Christian, you couldn't possibly wake up to anything else. In other words when once you belonged to the serpent you now belong to God, so I ask again, when was it that you were Christian?

Lol... "you couldn't possibly wake up to anything else"?!?! You're giving way too much credit to christianity. I was raised in a family of christians, I was a christian till about 15 years, when the final blow was struck (at 15 years old, I've decided that hipocrisy is disgusting, and that I wasn't christian anymore and I was only a hipocrite for acting as one) The grounds for me to stop being a christian were mainly a lot of debates in which I was trying to convince some atheists to stop being so, and the more I got into those debates, the more I realized how absurd all the arguments that I used, or that the priests used (cause half of those debates were in Religion class, which we held with a priest twice a week)

At around 15 years old I also started reading the bible, and I also could not believe how absurd it was. I also could not believe how malevolent god was depicted in the bible, how different he was from what the priests had preached to us, and how stupid it was for peoples of all kinds to believe in a god that would favour ONE people, for which he'd kill left and right.

Now, the thing is: you consider christianity to be true, and therefore, in your own opinion, one can only wake up to christianity, and falling out of christianity wouldn't be waking up, but the opposite. But this is your opinion. I can not condemn you for having this opinion and I actually congratulate you for thinking your own mind and speaking it.

HOWEVER, I also have an opinion, which is that all religions are incorrect. According to my own opinion, one can only wake up out of a religion, not into a religion, and this is the opinion that I had stated.

As you can notice, I am being more than polite and respectful here. I would like for you to do the same. Because there's a difference between expressing an opinion, and expressing an opinion in such a way, and with such a "tone" that it sends the idea that you believe the others to have stupid ideas.

 

[The Dude]

Maybe this thread should be renamed "Why did god make atheists?" since the obvious answer to "why are there atheists?" is "because there is no god".

As FPS Doug would say...

BOOM, HEADSHOT!

 

[Chukada1]

Guess where most conversions to Christianity are taking place... You got it! ASIA! http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/24/holiday-naysayers/

It also states in that article how 1 third of humanity considers itself Christian. I'm 20 years old and I like using smiley faces.

Wow. God really sucks at his job then. Only a 3rd of mankind has adopted Christianity. That means 2/3rds of the population is going to burn in eternal hell. Well woopty cow.

Well duh it's Asia, that's the last place on Earth which hasn't been converted. First it was Europe, can't convert Christians now can we? Then it was America, can't convert Americans can we? Just because the majority of conversions are taking place in Asia is not sufficient enough. I bet you a nickle and a dime that those numbers aren't even significant. It's probably like 1% of each respective countries population which is Christian.

Why is it a Christians job to convert somebody? If God loves all his children, why don't the Christians just help people, instead of forcing thier religion down starving throats. Then they can say hi, when they see that post - pagan worshiping satanist in heaven. I know the majority of Christian folk are good people, it's just evengalacism which ruins the whole deal.

 

[Gerald The Herald]

My reply to the OP.
"Why are there atheists"

-- Why are there theists?
Religion cannot be applied using the same logical and scientific laws we posses. Therefore, the point of "Rather be a theist and be safe rather than burn in hell" cannot possibly be met out. Conversely, the idea that being an "Atheist and save myself from the sheer stupidity and ignorance of theism" also cannot be proven, for God, at least in theism's perspective, exists, and nothing thus far has proven otherwise
To each his own, and you'd be well off to not interferre in other peoples' belief. The point is, inquiry and questioning can only go to an extent


Originally posted by Chukada 1

"Well duh it's Asia, that's the last place on Earth which hasn't been converted. First it was Europe, can't convert Christians now can we? Then it was America, can't convert Americans can we? Just because the majority of conversions are taking place in Asia is not sufficient enough. I bet you a nickle and a dime that those numbers aren't even significant. It's probably like 1% of each respective countries population which is Christian."

Africa? By the way, you forgot to include the "Middle East" between the attempt of Europe and America, can't forget the crusades. (Europe was somewhat successful..as was the America's..btw)

 

[Phunkracy]

atheists aren't smarter than theists because there is no way life could exist on earth without a higher being. The chances of life just beginning on earth is like unfathomable, and the chances of humans evolving from primordial soup is even unfathomabler. So if you think about it, atheists are really the ones who's percentage of being right are less than theists.

Except the arguments the others brought up, there is one more:

If chance of life on Earth is so small, and so is chance of humans evolving, then what's the chance of allmighty, omniscent eternal being existing?

 

[Treize]

TS, if I would tell you the truth they'll probably ban me.

 

[Rich86]

If you are right, nobody cares, because you cease to exist.

So? We want the truth - we're not bothered if you care or not.

If you are wrong, you burn in a torturous, never ending hell.

We don't think we are. If you are worshipping the wrong God you could well end up in a similar situation.

Why would you not take a precaution, and just believe something? Anything would be preferable to nothing.

I don't like the idea of forcing myself to believe something that I don't think is true. I don't like the idea of DoubleThink

an Atheist brain waves aint right.

Any evidence for that?

Most humans are hardwired to accept a supreme being.

Evidence? If they are - so what?

Inevitably once a person becomes MATURE enough they begin to ponder how it all came to be and most of those with COMMON SENSE come to the LOGICAL conclusion that there is a supreme being.

Wow....capitals in case people don't get what you're trying to say. Come on grow up and stop it with all this crass nonsense about people who don't agree with me are immature and lack common sense it's just boring.

I think you are just mad at God.

I think you are just mad at Thor.

I wonder how many Atheist are actually just angry at God instead of actually not believing in him.

I wonder how many Christians are just angry at Thor/Artemis/Apollo/Athena/Baal/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/Barney The Dinosaur/Vampires/Goblins/Fairies instead of actually not believing in them? :hmmm:

Not believing in God is one thing but trying to shove that belief down peoples throat is another.

That's like saying It's one thing to disagree with my political ideas, but to try and explain to me why they are wrong - that's just not acceptable!

I for one think Jesus, is very cool. As is J.R.R. Tolkien, Richard the Lionheart, Alexander the Great, Saladin, Albert Einstein, Blaise Pascal (thanks Tigrul), Moses, most of the players in the NFL, etc. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

........What's your point?

I don't think Scientology counts, because that is way too ridiculous to believe, right?

Yet you believe in a religion which claims that a woman gave birth despite being a virgin. That a man (who was also his father (who didn't physically impregnate his mother)) died, but then came back to life. That the same man could bend the laws of the universe as we understand them to magically create wine out of water. That a snake had a chat with some humans. I could go on.......

You're in no position to scoff at other people's beliefs if we just glance at the things that you believe in.

If this thread were in the science forum you might have something but since it isnt keep your "show me science" in the proper forum.

So because it's in EMM evidence has no place here? Right well whilst we're in this 'No evidence haven' I put forward the idea that eating chocolate will turn you into a pink elephant. I need not provide pesky evidence as that's for those sciency people with their big words and their evidence over in the science forum.

I have no problem with Scientific evidence and wat not. But this isnt the thread for it.

Conveniant

All I have to mention is the name David Lack. Now go run in your holes.

David Lack who wrote about birds?

You have to choose between Christianity and Atheism, why not just choose Christian, and not risk the eternal hell that awaits you. And by the way, those are your only two options.

Why don't you choose Islam? It's the one true faith and all that Jazz - why don't you convert? Let's face it, you have only two choices; convert or burn in hell for all eternity whilst the rest of us party with Allah.

keep your opinions out of the debate.

He can voice his opinions if he wishes. It's not for you to decide who can, and cannot voice their opinions.

The idea that God is man made is your opinion, not a fact. Get that straight.

Considering the burden of proof for this 'God' fellow lies with you, and considering you are unable to provide any such proof I think he's quite right to discard the idea out of hand.

I'm saying that it could be possible for an infant to have a basic desire to believe in a "Supreme Being." I have no way of proving that, but neither do you have a way of proving that all people begin life as atheists.

You told this guy to stay out of the debate for not having any proof. You admit you can also not provide it; by your own argument should you not also bow out of the debate?

atheists aren't smarter than theists because there is no way life could exist on earth without a higher being.

Please provide evidence for that claim.

 

[Valiant Champion]

No, I'm pretty sure you're lying. Unless you're a race of super god, you can't remember anything from two years old.

No. I am dead serious. Most people dont have a lot of hindsight because they dwell on the here and now constantly or in todays modern world peoples minds are constantly occupied.

But inside there are very complex memories from very early in a humans life. Sometimes just sitting down and spending a while trying to remember just how far into your childhood you can remember you might surprise yourself.

Although my case is a little unusual it certianly doesnt make me a superhuman. And my daughter I simply quiz her from time to time on certian things like remembering her great grandmother and great great grandmother that died in the last several years. So far she still vividly remembers both and even remembers where her great grandmother lived. She died in 2004 and my duaghter would have been 3 at the time. When she was two I pulled her around in a wagon outside of her great grandmothers house pretty regular for several months and she still remembers that and remembers spending time with her on numerous occasions.

 

[Il Duce]

Just because a famous guy says something doesn't mean it's true.

That's an extremely ironic post considering what we're arguing here

 

[Nutsack]

As FPS Doug would say...

BOOM, HEADSHOT!

I can dance all day! I can dance all day!

Has anybody ever noticed how Brucie in GTA 4 was made after FPS Doug?

 

[Sator Mortis]

No. I am dead serious. Most people dont have a lot of hindsight because they dwell on the here and now constantly or in todays modern world peoples minds are constantly occupied.

But inside there are very complex memories from very early in a humans life. Sometimes just sitting down and spending a while trying to remember just how far into your childhood you can remember you might surprise yourself.

Although my case is a little unusual it certianly doesnt make me a superhuman. And my daughter I simply quiz her from time to time on certian things like remembering her great grandmother and great great grandmother that died in the last several years. So far she still vividly remembers both and even remembers where her great grandmother lived. She died in 2004 and my duaghter would have been 3 at the time. When she was two I pulled her around in a wagon outside of her great grandmothers house pretty regular for several months and she still remembers that and remembers spending time with her on numerous occasions.

Of course she has memories of them; you're creating them with your quizzes.

 

[Valiant Champion]

Of course she has memories of them; you're creating them with your quizzes.

Nope cause I dont give her the answers. She remembers.

I think a lot of this is something a lot of these sickos came up with and convinced themselves to believe because they think if they molest a kid under 4 or 5 they wont remember it when they grow up. Therefore in their mind they have done no wrong.

You arent one of those are you? A sicko?

 

[Manco]

You don't get it, do you? It's biologically impossible to have memories that early. Your brain simply doesn't have that ability yet.
Everything before the age of 3-4 are reconstructions based on what other people say, or often not even that. You still seem to think your brain is a recording device and that somehow everything from your first years has been recorded, but that you can't access it. That's not how it works!

also, grats on the very subtle ad hominems.