Is there a single reason to be an atheist?Besides appealing to ignorance.
It leaves room open to read other books.
>>16894274I wanted to be atheist to enjoy porn (previously doing it while a crypto atheist prior to awakening) but lost that interest when my addiction faded
>>16894274Being intellectually honest instesd of a retard pretending to believe in ridiculous bullcrap so he can be more “trad”
>>16894279Then you are retarded, I’m an atheidt and I have never watched porn, just watched some Deviantart of my fetish when I was a teen, but I’ve not looked at those in 10 years or so either
>>16894274I believe true things because they are true. I don't need a "reason" to believe what is true other than recognizing their truth.
On a side note, does anybody here know of a working extension which brings YouTube comments to the right side?
>>16894274Belief without faith is the same as nothing
The question of atheism isn't about finding a single reason, but rather understanding a myriad of perspectives. To be an atheist is to question the assumptions of organized religion, to seek a worldview grounded in empirical evidence and personal experience rather than dogma. It's about embracing uncertainty and the pursuit of knowledge, recognizing that the universe is vast and mysterious, and that our understanding of it is ever-evolving. Atheism, like any other belief system, is a personal journey rather than a destination defined by a single reason.
>>16894352All atheists are faithless
>>16894356The term 'faithless' seems misleading. Atheists might not have faith in deities or religious doctrines, but that doesn't mean they lack conviction, values, or a sense of wonder about the universe. Many atheists place their faith in human reason, scientific inquiry, and the potential for human progress. They often hold deep ethical beliefs and a commitment to principles like compassion, justice, and the search for truth. In many ways, their 'faith' is in the capacity of humanity to understand and improve the world through knowledge and cooperation.
>>16894274>Is there a single reason to be an atheist?Snakes don't talk and rabbis don't fly. Arabic warlords don't split the moon in half. Simple as.
>>16894352>>16894366atheists hate God which is why they are atheists to begin with.
>>16894352>To be an atheist is to question the assumptions of organized religion, to seek a worldview grounded in empirical evidence and personal experience rather than dogma.This becomes harder to believe each time I hear it repeated by atheists as one would a dogma
>>16894371Kind of like sigma males trying to cope and hide thier being beta.Hiding their hate and beliefs that God does not exist with IESLB.
>>16894371>what's your dogma? >my dogma is that a rabbi didn't fly into the sky like superman 2000 years agolmao truly an exotic piece of dogma
>>16894369Claiming that atheists 'hate God' misunderstands atheism, as it's difficult to hate something one doesn't believe exists. Atheism typically arises from a lack of evidence for deities rather than animosity toward them. >>16894369As for the perception that atheists repeat their views dogmatically, it’s important to distinguish between dogma and consensus. Dogma is adherence to beliefs without question, while the statements often repeated by atheists reflect conclusions drawn from critical thinking and empirical evidence. Repetition of these ideas serves to clarify and reinforce a reasoned stance, not to establish an unquestionable doctrine.
>>16894382>phonepostingThe second part was obviously an answer to >>16894371
>>16894382Nobody really believes that atheists don't believe God exists though.But we just go along with cause that's what they say and who is to speak for someone else?So yeah, there is nothing difficult to understand. Besides the part where you insinuated that atheism is caused by the lack of evidence of the creator of evidence.
>>16894382Where is the empirical proof that people need to question the assumptions of organized religion and seek a worldview grounded in empirical evidence and personal experience rather than dogma?
>>16894396The assertion that atheists secretly believe in God but claim otherwise doesn't align with the experiences and testimonies of many atheists. Atheism typically stems from a genuine conclusion that the evidence for deities is insufficient. It's about an honest search for truth, guided by the evidence available.>>16894404Questioning the assumptions of organized religion isn't about requiring empirical proof to do so; it's a philosophical and personal inquiry. Empirical evidence supports scientific understanding, but the decision to question religious dogma often arises from critical thinking, inconsistencies in religious texts, historical analysis, and personal experiences.
>>16894396>Nobody really believes that atheists don't believe God exists though.Most people do believe that though, you just lack the ability to model other people's worldviews because your brain's computing power is subpar.
>>16894420>Questioning the assumptions of organized religion isn't about requiring empirical proof to do so; it's a philosophical and personal inquiry. Empirical evidence supports scientific understanding, but the decision to question religious dogma often arises from critical thinking, inconsistencies in religious texts, historical analysis, and personal experiences.Oh so it's just your personal preference, ok
>>16894429The question asked by OP was about the reasons someone might choose to be an atheist. My intention here is to explain those reasons, not to convince anyone to adopt atheism themselves.
>>16894404>Where is the empirical proof that people need to question the assumptions of organized religion >needThere is no "need" or moral compulsion to do so. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. A person doesn't choose whether they're convinced by a specific proposition or not. For example I don't get to choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese: I simply don't believe it's made of cheese due to lack of convincing evidence. Same deal for theists' proposition. This is in direct contrast to many religions that claim one has a moral obligation to believe a very specific set of unfalsifiable supernatural propositions, and that those who don't are evil and deserve to be tortured for disbelief.If on the other hand, instead of "need" you meant benefit, then I'd personally argue that the main benefit of disbelieving religious dogma is that those beliefs often tend to inform negative behavior and make people unconvincable. If for example, a theist attempts to do something retarded and they believe they have a divine mandate to do so, or they believe they have to do the retarded thing in order to not be tortured, then that person can't be convinced by any argument based on human empathy, common benefit or other things based on our shared objective reality that we all inhabit.
>>16894274And agnostic is just and atheist who doesn’t want the cultural baggage. Its like saying you’re bisexual because you literally haven’t met every single male human to have ever existed so how can you know you wouldn’t find one attractive?
>>16894369No. Atheists can't hate what doesn't even exist to begin with. At best they can't hate the concept of it, and that's not even true fro all atheists.
>>16894396Just because you spend all your day on the /r/ Christianity echochamber deluding yourself that doesn't mean other people are as delusional as you are
>>16894274Not believing in God.That's it.
>>16894274No one who believes in gods and tried to sell me on it ever has proof. End of story.
>>16894461Thanks for proving God I guess.>>16894468Doesn't answer the question though.
>>16894457Agnosticism and atheism address different questions: agnosticism deals with knowledge (what we can or cannot know about the existence of deities), while atheism deals with belief (whether one believes in deities). An agnostic might say that the existence of deities is unknowable, while an atheist might say they don't believe in deities due to a lack of evidence. Comparing this to sexuality is misleading, as belief and knowledge are not the same as personal attraction. People identify as agnostic or atheist based on their understanding and beliefs, not to avoid cultural labels.Fucking summerkid
>>16894461Not to mention the "angry atheists" stereotype often arises from religious behavior around them. I'm lucky enough to be born in a secular country where belief and disbelief are considered a personal issue, but if I was accosted on a daily basis by different theists telling me I'm an evil sinner, or worse, lived in a country where religious dogma informed local policy, or I came out of religion that practiced shunning, or one that outright killed apostates, then I figure I'd have a very strong emotional response towards any theists spouting their bullshit. Many theists of course tend to mistake this anger towards themselves and their shitty behavior as anger towards their god, because they view dislike of themselves as equal to dislike and hatred toward their personal god of choice.
>>16894483That’s not been my experience whatsoever. Every agnostic I’ve met is just an atheist that kinda thinks ghosts might be real or is into crystals.
>>16894483And yes, it is possible to be both agnostic and an atheist simultaneously. These terms address different aspects of belief and knowledge: Atheism deals with belief. An atheist does not believe in the existence of gods. This is a statement about belief or lack thereof.Agnosticism deals with knowledge. An agnostic does not claim to know whether gods exist or not. This is a statement about knowledge or the lack of certain knowledge.Therefore, an agnostic atheist does not believe in any gods (atheism) and also does not claim to have certain knowledge about the existence or non-existence of gods (agnosticism).
>>16894396Motherfucker half the “Christians” here openly admit that they pretend god is real because they think it makes society better. Neck yourself you stupid fucking pussy lmao
>>16894274I think your definition of atheism is wrong. Practically no one believes "God does not exist" when people say atheist they are generally referring to the proper latin roots of the word meaning "not a theist" or simply lacking belief in a religion.
>>16894274>Is there a single reason to be an atheist?Yes, you get to talk about God constantly.
>>16894496When everyone does not believe God does not exist, it simply means everyone believes God exists.So yeah, I agree.You know, the same way if something is not insufficient, then it is sufficient.
>>16894482It does answer the question. That's the most direct answer to the question.Why do you not believe in Odin?
>>16894274Atheism is boring. That's why I chose Odinism.
>>16894451>There is no "need" or moral compulsion to do so. Ok so it's personal preference>If on the other hand, instead of "need" you meant benefit, then I'd personally argue that the main benefit of disbelieving religious dogma is that those beliefs often tend to inform negative behavior and make people unconvincable. Weird standard because it's impossible to convince atheists of anything transcendent
>>16894274I AM GOD
>>16894510Cause I can't know he does not exist.
>>16894505The """logic""" in your statement conflates belief with absence of belief. Not believing in God does not automatically mean one believes God exists; it simply means there is no belief in either direction. This is similar to a neutral stance. In terms of sufficiency, not insufficient does not necessarily mean fully sufficient; it could mean the level of sufficiency is undetermined. Belief and non-belief operate on a spectrum, and neutrality or lack of conviction is a valid position.
>>16894519Then you believe in Odin?
>>16894520You don't believe God either exists or does not exist?
>>16894524Non sequitur.
>christoids have lost every single argument and are backed into the corner of smooth brain wordgames Massive W for secular chads. Unreal
>>16894526Correct. It's possible to neither believe that God exists nor believe that God does not exist. This position, often associated with agnosticism, reflects uncertainty or the view that there isn't enough evidence to justify belief either way. It's about acknowledging the limits of our knowledge rather than committing to a definitive stance on the existence of deities.It's like saying you don't believe a particular treasure is buried in your backyard, but you also don't believe it's definitely not there. You simply don't have enough information to decide either way, so you remain unsure.
>>16894515>Ok so it's personal preferenceYes? Just like your belief in one deity or another is based on personal preference, your place of birth, possibly the religion of your parents, and whether you venerate the writers of your religious texts as infallible arbiters of truth and morality. You don't have some objective moral standard to fall back on, even though you probably pretend you do.>it's impossible to convince atheists of anything transcendentIt's because your evidence tends to be either shit, unfalsifiable philosophical arguments or personal experience based "just trust me bro". Also, I was specifically talking about behavior. If your theism doesn't harm others, or on the contrary makes you act more benevolent towards others, then I have no beef with your superstitions. It's when theists try to shove their bullshit down my throat or make their religious dogma policy when I start vehemently opposing theism.
>>16894524Oh sorry about that, I meant cause I know he does not exist.I'm running multiple threads so please excuse me.
>>16894546worse part is they aren't even good at said word games
>>16894554Thanks for the free advertising!GOD
>>16894550Op doesn't and won't ever understand this. It's not a matter of discussion, he's just not very bright and some concepts are too tough for his cognitive hardware.
>>16894550That's not what I asked you though.Do you believe that God either exists or does not exist?
>>16894623Well, that depends on what you're asking, especially since you write 'God' with a capital 'G,' implying a specific, often monotheistic, conception of a deity. If we're talking about such a Godlike being, my perspective is a bit unconventional: I believe that if such a being exists, it could exist and not exist simultaneously, rendering the question of 'either/or' moot.This might sound paradoxical, but it's rooted in the idea that a truly omnipotent and transcendent entity could defy our conventional understanding of existence. Just as quantum particles can exist in superposition, being in multiple states at once, a Godlike being might transcend our binary notions of existence and non-existence. So, rather than fitting neatly into a category of 'exists' or 'does not exist,' this being could challenge our very definitions, pushing us to think beyond the limits of human logic and experience.
>>16894686>>16894623To use simple words:Do you believe a omnipotent and transcendent being could will itself out of existence?
>>16894274What's God?
>>16894709The Creator Devil Satan
>>16894551So do you think everyone should be atheist? If so then would that include people like me who see no way to rationally justify morality in atheism and therefore would have no care for human life if I were an atheist?
>>16894722Not that anon, but I don't think everyone should be an atheist. Belief systems are deeply personal and should be based on individual reflection and understanding. If your sense of morality and care for human life is closely tied to your theistic beliefs, then it's important for you to follow what aligns with your values and conscience. Atheism doesn't inherently lack a basis for morality. Many atheists find moral grounding in humanistic principles, empathy, and the well-being of others. Philosophers and thinkers have developed robust frameworks for ethics and morality that don't rely on theism. However, if you feel that your moral compass is best supported by your belief in God, then that is a valid and important aspect of your worldview.Simply don't use it to justify being an asshole
>>16894722>So do you think everyone should be atheist?Not necessarily. I think human behavior should be rooted in reality and tangible consequences our actions cause to others and ourselves, but personal beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality are up to every person. If you find comfort in your personal beliefs that's fine.>If so then would that include people like me who see no way to rationally justify morality in atheism and therefore would have no care for human life if I were an atheist?If the only reason you treat others well is because you're ordered to do so, then can you really call yourself a good person? Would your god call you a good person, if the only reason you act well is out of self-preservation and avoiding punishment of hell? Theists often tend to denigrate themselves when it comes to this topic, but I believe you would want to treat others well even if you didn't believe in a god.Besides, I think it's impossible to justify "objective" morality in an atheistic and theistic worldview alike. Regardless of whether one is a theist or not, one ultimately ends up adopting morality based on their personal subjective beliefs and experiences. You see this with theists all the time: all the bad rules of their religions that they personally consider immoral or arbitrary tend to get excused as temporary measures only applying to a specific time, culture, place and people group, or as metaphors and the like, whereas the rules they themselves like are viewed as infallible unchanging word of god everyone should always follow. Regardless of the religion and denomination, it always ends up being about personal beliefs and preferences of the theist. They build the god they worship in their own image. Additionally, any morality a hypothetical god holds is ultimately its subjective preferences: the only difference between a human dictator and a divine dictator is that the latter is much more powerful and is better at enforcing its personal preferences.
>>16894606>>16894546>>16894789I fear we scared them away with those big words they don't understand, just as it was starting to get somewhat interesting. Looks like I am going back to shitposting
>>16894746>>16894789Yea I'm aware of all that, it's just arbitrary though and not convincing at all. If humans are just flesh automatons driven by mindless particle motions then they're no more valuable than some bacteria, just some primates who think a bit too highly of themselves.>>16894789>If the only reason you treat others well is because you're ordered to do so, then can you really call yourself a good person? Would your god call you a good person, if the only reason you act well is out of self-preservation and avoiding punishment of hell? Theists often tend to denigrate themselves when it comes to this topic, but I believe you would want to treat others well even if you didn't believe in a god.No I only value people because Jesus showed humans have value. No I'm not good. I do not have a fear of hell, and I know this from times where I have left God, and it's in those times also humans seemed like pointless objects I had no reason to care for.
>>16894878Our mind and intelligence lets us create concepts like justice and mercy and love into the universe, these exist because we choose to make it so
>>16894878>If humans are just flesh automatons driven by mindless particle motions then they're no more valuable than some bacteria, just some primates who think a bit too highly of themselves.Humans have value because humans value other humans. "Value" and "meaning" are inherently subjective judgements a willing agent makes on something, they're not objective features of reality passed down from somewhere else. I inherently value myself, my hobbies, my goals, my possessions and my loved ones, because doing so bring myself and hopefully others happiness, not because I'm ordered by someone else to value them.>No I only value people because Jesus showed humans have valueI've seen this myopic argument many times. In your theistic worldview humans only have value because they have utility to a more powerful being, or they're created in its image - whether it's for some "plan" or having a social relationship - but like morality, there exists no non-circular way to justify value judgements. If a being requires something greater than it to give it value, then your god has no value either, unless something greater than god gives it value. Heaven has no value, unless it exists for some greater purpose, and it in turn has no value, unless it exists for some other purpose, and so on.In the end it's the subjective value judgement of a human or a hypothetical god (both thinking agents, one is merely more powerful than the other) that gives things meaning and value.
>>16894917Untrue. Humans make mistakes and lie, but if God is perfect and cannot make mistakes or lie, and if he says humans have value, then that is simply the case. There is no comparison with humans. You can live however you want, but I cannot rationally justify morality without God, it just makes no sense and I can't live playing pretend.
>>16894477retarded>>16894736schizo
>>16894274>Is there a single reason to be an atheist?The fact that all religion books are objectively false.
>>16894878I see where you're coming from, but consider this: even if humans are made up of mindless particles, the complexity and emergent properties of our brains and societies create unique experiences and values that are far from arbitrary. The ability to reflect, create, love, and aspire adds layers of meaning that go beyond mere physical composition. It sounds like you're dismissing human experiences and values too quickly. Reducing our existence to 'flesh automatons' and comparing humans to bacteria ignores the complexity and richness of human life. It's almost as if you're trying to trivialize the very aspects that make life meaningful and valuable. Perhaps it's worth reconsidering the depth and significance of what it means to be human before dismissing it so lightly.
