Why Do People Become Atheists?

That my friend, is my issue as well - I always say they are not mutually exclusive. To me they are not. Jmho

 

I've enjoyed the intellectual transactions between you and I, as well as those that took place between myself and a few others here. I'm glad that we don't agree on everything because when we disagree it causes us to question ourselves, even if we don't do it consciously.

 

I don't know which god you're talking about. I naturally assumed you were talking about the Hebrew god since he's usually the one people are talking about when they say "God". I'm not saying that "God" had a hand in the Bible or anything else for that matter. I'm not religious. What I'm saying is that I don't know anybody who just thought up "God". There are those who became believers in God through the Bible and then discarded the Bible while continuing to believe in him. But I have yet to meet a person who just thought of "God" by themselves. If you're not talking about Yahew, aka Jehova, then disregard what I've typed.

 

I think you are misusing terms in a way that exhibits a common appeal to emotions rather than rational thought. Atheism means "without belief in gods." Agnosticism means "without knowledge." It refers to knowledge or knowability. People may be categorized as having states of belief or non-belief with or without the knowledge required to to achieve that state. It seems to me that people often refer to something called 'agnosticism' because they are afraid to admit that they don't believe something controversial.

If you are asked about something's existence, ideally you would answer it rationally based on what you know. Until I have evidence to confirm something's existence, I don't believe in it. In the case of a sentient designer, this makes me not merely agnostic (because I don't have knowledge of that), but also atheist (because not having the knowledge, I cannot trully believe.) This is a very simple concept. In practice, we are all charged with acting on things without perfect knowledge, and we have to rely on some concensus to allay our fears, but the fact remains that which is unknown is simply unknown. There is know middle ground. Some things are a matter of simple dichotomy.

What is worth arguing is the rationality of belief or non-belief held with or without knowledge. Does it make sense to believe in a god while also claiming that the god is unknowable (agnostic theism)? That is a commonly discussed point of fallacy. Do the arguments of gnostic atheists, who believe that there is sufficient evidence to come to a rational conclusion that god does not exist, hold merit? What about those of gnostic theists? If one is asked about belief or disbelief in gods, the answer of agnosticism should be accompanied by something like 'theist' or 'atheist.'

I believe a fearless scientist understands that a concept can be intensely investigated by following a rational path without leaping to any conclusion. To do so would be akin to solving half of a puzzle, stopping, and saying "the puzzle is already finished." But when you are ready to quit your investigation, you should ask yourself "What do I honestly know about the conclusion?" Otherwise, don't pretend to know something you don't. Live your life admitting that you have no knowledge to support your belief in the conclusion.

If you study philosopy, specifically ontological argument, you will understand that there are many other terms used to describe a person's state of belief, and perhaps someone here would like to say that I am oversimplifying things. However, some of those terms are often subject to regard as representing academic and intellectual dishonesty. Intermediate terms such as 'deism' and the misuse of 'agnosticism' to represent 'weak or 'strong' states of belief are perfect examples of this, because they allow a person a crutch upon which to avoid acknowledging a rational position.

 

I concur my friend

 

I like Christmas also and I celebrate it in the most secular manner. Even without a religious aspect it's a sacred tradition for many.

 

Science and religion can really only be juxtaposed in a theoretical setting. An example of what I mean would be spontaneous generation. In the Bible God makes some type of food called manna (sp?) fall from the sky. He tells the Israelites not to save it or else it will turn into maggots.

Spontaneous generation was disproved when it was discovered that flies lay their eggs on food which becomes a breeding ground; the food doesn't turn into maggots. But the fact that spontaneous generation has been disproved cannot be used as an argument against the story of the manna because the manna came from a divine being whose actions can't really be bound by our logic and science.

There's a book out called 'The Science of Harry Potter', which is about how all of the magic can be scientifically explained. I'm sure there are books on how the miracles of the Bible can be scientifically explained - I've seen a couple different documentaries on the subject. But it's still only hypothetical. "This is how this may have happened" or "this is how this could have been done", and so on.

Also, Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God.

 

Yeah but Einstein and Newton did believe in God and they've contributed way more to physics than Hawking

 

Maybe the Stephen Hawking down your street doesn't believe in God but Stepehen Hawking the physicst has stated the following:
"I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science," he said. "The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."


link where I got that quote from is http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49U6E220081031?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews

That was 2008, I believe

as far as 1988, in the book called A Brief History of Time, He also wrote

"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.”


link to that:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...od-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

What people confuse is that he says he does not believe in a "personal" god which is different from not believing in any god at all.

 

It doesn't matter to me who believes in him or not. I wasn't implying that because Stephen Hawking doesn't believe that everyone else shouldn't. I simply stated that because Flyingeek said he was open to that.

 

"In A Brief History Of Time I used the word "God" like Einstein did as a shorthand for the laws of physics. However, this is not what most people mean by God, so I have decided not to use the term. The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a God."

http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=483&Itemid=2

I have a copy of A Brief History of Time by the way, and I was kind of shocked when I heard about him elaborating on his view of "God". I think he's just using the word god for lack of a better time. Like with me...I don't actually believe science is a god in the literal sense, but rather I feel that it's the key to our progression as human beings.

 

Oh ok my bad

 

A few issues there:

1. Einstein's wife actually did more than her husband. But thanks to the hostile environment regarding attitudes with women, she wouldn't get the credit she deserved. She was a brilliant mathematician herself, far better than her husband.

Secondly, Einstein didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God that people assumed. He actually believed in Spinozism. It's defined as...

Spinozism is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, and both matter and thought as attributes of such. Spinoza claimed that the third kind of knowledge, intuition, is the highest kind attainable.

In Spinozism, the concept of a personal relationship with God comes from the position that one is a part of an infinite interdependent "organism". Spinoza taught that everything is but a wave in an endless ocean, and that what happens to one wave will affect other waves. Thus Spinozism teaches a form of determinism and ecology and supports this as a basis for morality.[citation needed]

Additionally, a core doctrine of Spinozism is that the universe is essentially deterministic. All that happens or will happen could not have unfolded in any other way. Spinozism is closely related to the Hindu doctrines of Samkhya and Yoga.[citation needed]

Spinoza's doctrine was considered radical at the time he published and he was widely seen as the most infamous atheist-heretic of Europe. His philosophy was part of the philosophic debate in Europe during the Enlightenment, along with Cartesianism.

2. Indeed Sir Isaac Newton was heavily religious, but he did separate his faith from science.

 

Yes but no where does he say he does not believe in god. I don't know his definition of god and I haven't seen any articles asking of what he believes is god.

"The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a God."

This is very true. You don't need to pull in god to explain gravity or e=mc^2. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in god but like he said in that quote. The laws do explain the universe and doesn't require pulling the term god into the conversation to explain how stuff works in the universe. I have seen people try to say godly intervention happened when some how they survivor cancer or something like that. You were faithed to survive. God didn't do anything. The laws of the universe governed it. That's all.

It is tough to describe something that you have not seen heard or w/e. That's why I put almost no definition of god but I do align with Newton in saying god had a hand in starting the universe. Things just don't pop out of nowhere. that is nonsense. No offense to hawking. It starts somewhere.

 

Spinozism sounds like every other religion without all the mysticism. I'm gonna read up on it.

 

It's not a religion. It's a philosophical position which, unlike other religions which hold dualistic ideas, is monistic. It does lack spirituality, but you could argue it's closer to secularism.

 

So, now we're basically going in circles with semantics. He said "If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God'". He didn't even say "I call the laws of science 'God'". He seems to be either on the fence like an agnostic or either he's totally unconvinced, like an atheist.

He's clearly stated that he doesn't mean what most people mean when they use the word 'God', and so I'm going to go out on a limb and take that as his way of saying: I don't believe that there's a celestial architect lovingly peering down at us.

Agreed.

I'm not quite ready to accept that theory either.

 

What I mean is just because I truly believe in the scientific explanation of the birth of the universe and evolution, does not mean that religion and the existence of god is automatically nullified.
It all could have been set in motion by a god.
And that is exactly what Hawkins has said on several occasions - ergo - he is open to the possibility of the existence of a god.
He has many times said the Science does not automatically mean that God does not exist. This does not mean that he believes in god - he doesnt as far as I understand, it only means he is open to the thought.

 

Isn't there a similar likelihood that the universe was set in motion by the cosmic entity known as Phoenix (which saved Jean Grey in the X-Men stories), or by Jupitor or Urea, or any number of other entities identified in the stories and imaginings of man? If you are a person of science, why not apply the same optimistic reasoning about God to your work?

 

Fair enough.
Good question actually.. it all depends on what you define as a god - plenty of choices...
Oooor.... they could all be the same one.

See you can spin this in an infinite number of ways - each have their own idea of the infinite truth.

Even your use of the word "optimistic" is just simply a reflection of your thought about it - doesn't mean it is optimistic, from your standpoint it is.. for many many others, its not. It just is.
They will never change your mind and vice versa.

I heard something on talk radio a few months ago where a Priest was complaining about the younger generations having the idea that there are many truths - all depending on the viewer. He had an issue with that and meant that there is just one truth...

Even 50 years ago, the discussion on here regarding this, would be much simpler, we, today - have a wider grasp of "truth" and it does not mean the same as it did 50 years ago as far as belief is concerned.

I find the discussion stimulating as hell...opps, I mean heck.
LOL