I have read many reasons why people are atheist on here. What has begun to bother me is many people's justification for their atheist point of view is not based on logic. Many seem to be coming from a place of anger then they attach theists for their injustices. Injustice is not mutually exclusive to religion. I think people should move past that and get their views from sound examination of facts and fiction. I don't believe there is a God for one reason and one reason only. I have no proof of his existence and the inconsistencies about who and what he is. I am not Atheist because of the flaws to religious institutions. To me that puts you in a very weak and shaky place. What do each of you think?
Hmm it might seem that some of us are angry but i'm quite sure most are real atheists that have examined the evidence or lack thereof and concluded there is no god.
As to the being angry part i think it's more frustration with christians and religious people in general, they seem so thickheaded and never seem to listen to reason even when you show them all the evidence.
And they tell us atheists that without god we have no morals and that hitler and stalin were atheists even though they weren't, lumping us together with 2 of the biggest mass murderers of the past just to show us how evil atheists are.
And one of the biggest reason to be frustrated with religious people is that they try to get special treatment above all others, Like wanting creationism being tought in school, prayers in school, children being indoctrinated from birth, the current anti-science movement is a very big concern of mine.
Also the part about being treated as a second class citizen when you tell your an atheist doesn't sit well with me.
So yes, i am frustrated that in the 21st century most people on this planet are still believing in a bronze age book that teaches nothing but ignorance and keeps people from using their brain.
"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. – Robert A Heinlein"
I agree with everything you have said Snowcrash. I have no reason to write why I am an atheist, because you have already said why better than I ever could. Thank you.
It depends really. Theism can be applied to philosophy (including science), culture, morality, government, and life style. Somebody can attach significance to the term 'atheism' in any area where they feel theism has significant presence. In that way, a person may very well have much stronger connection to atheism regarding social injustices than to the nature of the universe.
For instance, when it comes to the nature of the universe, I am only meaningfully atheist up to the point that someone starts proposing gods that hide in the absurd extremes of abstraction, or more appropriately, non-definition. When it comes to gods that are defined as undefined, I really just stop caring. Waste. Of. Time.
Now, if someone wants to use such a god to justify homophobia, as an example, my mindset changes somewhat. If their god is true, and is homophobic, I still will not follow its command. I will not be immoral just because it has been commanded by some unaccountable demon. With or without such a god, I still hold to the belief that morality must be determined by logic, evidence, compassion and sympathy. Morality must be assailable to reason; deities are simply not relevant. This stance is atheistic in itself though it makes no explicit assertions that gods don't exist.
Now, I'm not suggesting that a person could be an atheist on gay rights and a theist with regard to the universe. I'm just saying that a person's atheism could effect strong beliefs in one aspect of their life, yet the individual could maintain a fairly passive disbelief (bordering in indifference) towards the question of the existence of gods. I don't think that's wrong.
On a personal level, I never was a theist in all my life, nor was I ever compelled to become one. I have yet to encounter a convincing argument. Perhaps, to a Christian, Christian mythology is somehow different from Norse mythology, but the only difference I noticed between them as a child was that the latter was far more interesting than the former. They are both predicated on the same basic type of evidence, so it made no sense to say that one was credible by default whereas the other was not. Both would need to be scrutinized under the same standards, and in doing so without motive or bias, neither appears to be anything more than fairy tales.
I guess it would depend on the nature of the disagreement. Priests molesting boys is not permissible in Christian theology. Girls? Probably. Boys? Nope. It's not a major philosophical conflict to disagree with priests molesting boys yet still be a good Catholic.
But in other cases, it's more complicated. Religious institutions derive their authority from a higher place (doesn't matter if it's imaginary). In many cases, that higher place is a god who is infallible and beyond reproach. How can one contradict the validity of one mandate from such a god without also questioning the validity of all others? That leaves some cognitive dissonance to either ignore or resolve. One of the ways to resolve it is to give up one's faith altogether.
There is only one real reason for being an atheist: the fact that there isn't enough evidence to prove that any god exists. You can't have any other reasons for being an atheist, but you can have a lot of reasons for being against religion in general, or a religion in particular, or against religious people, or one in particular, you can have a lot of reasons for being against a god - but then you are not an atheist anymore, because, if you have something against something that you say doesn't exist, then what the hell are you? Certainly not an atheist, not anymore. If you are an atheist because you think gods are mean and only like to play with their creatures, that's not being an atheist, that's just being against a god, not denying that any god exists. That's how I see things regardin reasons for being an atheist, and the only reason why I'm an atheist is because there isn't enough evidence to prove that any god exists. I am angry, but I am angry with religion and with religious people in general for being so close-minded and keep the delusion alive, but those reasons can't be attributed to atheism. Whoever claims other reasons for being an atheist, is not really an atheist.
People should not confuse the various ways of opening your eyes and realize that it is all bullshit with actual reason(s) for not believing something exists. The only reason to not believe something exists is the lack of evidence to support that that particular thing does exist.
I was not hurt or insulted by religious people. Hypocrisy is a human condition. Biologically we need to be part of a group and my church really wasn't anti-intellectual and really did believe in science. I did not become an athiest because of those issues.
I gradually realized my atheism and then felt like a hypocrit for going to chruch and stopped.
I know others have more unhappy experiences but your argument is not logical as you are generalizing.