Atheists -what makes you so sure?

[OMG12]

I often wonder what makes atheists so sure that there isn’t a god. I’m not talking a particular iteration of the Divine, eg it’s easy to say I can’t believe there is a God because of childhood cancer, but that is predicated on the concept of a God who is only good and considers childhood cancer as bad and further is capable and willing to stop all bad things. I’m talking gods not religions here which a very different things.

Most cultures throughout time have have gods so it’s somewhat of an anomaly to not believe. I just wonder why people don’t believe. (And can we try and keep this a decent debate rather than any of the sky fairy shit those with an inability to debate a point beyond regurgitated social media soundbites seem limited to)

Why do you understand what makes people 100% sure, but not what makes people 100% not sure? I don’t understand how you can find the 1st position rational, but the 2nd not?

Why is that angry, it’s just pointing out that sky fairy posts are pointless in a debate, probably quite a distance from repeatedly calling someone a “nutter”

Who says I find either position rational?

Yes, I know he does, I keep meaning to read more of his stuff, this has actually prompted me to download some of this books - thank you

Ok, maybe rational is the wrong word. You said above that you understand people being 100% sure there is a God, but not those who are 100% sure there isn’t. Why?

I was talking about spiritual alchemy as stated

I haven't read the thread but my belief is that all religions were constructed for an evolutionary purpose. Having belief in a divine power helped people survive through the tough times (and still does for those that have faith). For those of us that don't have faith we use other resources

@OMG12 What do you want from this thread?

@foreverbasil " Having belief in a divine power helped people survive through the tough times"

It was also a good way of keeping the masses in their place. Still is, in fact.

I’m not sure it does say I lack empathy. I can understand how both sides feel. I can understand that those who believe are not basing their position on scientific methodology and I happen to agree that scientific methodology isn’t the only way or even always the best way to find the truth and therefore, whilst I might not agree I can understand how they got to their position.

Almost without exception everyone here has said they are atheists because they have no proof. To me, if you set out a hypothesis of “There isn’t a God”
This isn’t falsifiable, we can neither prove nor disprove it, so I wonder how people get from there might be or there might not be as would be suggested using science to there definitely cannot be one, it’s a leap of faith, I struggle to understand it intellectually how this leap of faith is made by those who claim to be evidence driven.

I often wonder what makes atheists so sure that there isn’t a god.

Because nobody can show me who they are.

All this stuff spouted in church sounds so bloody ridiculous too.

Thanks for trying to answer for me, unfortunately, as often happens when you’re trying to put words into someone else’s mouth they’re incorrect and usually not reflective of the thought processes of the person being spoken for…

AnywaY @CurlewKate, firstly as stated else where I’m interested in what makes people 100% certain of something when they are bound up in scientific methodology when there is no conclusive proof either way, what then males them
atheist rather than agnostic?

Secondly, it’s a useful way to explore ones own ideas by speaking with people with other ideas. In fact I’ve ordered/downloaded some books based on the suggestions here which is really helpful.

This is how ideas develop by looking at other ideas. By challenging ideas, seeing if new concepts develop, I assumed most atheists have a good grasp of logical debate (hence I was keep to nip the sky Daddy posters in the bud). I thought it would be interesting for both sides. Remember when debating could be done anc a middle ground reached? Or at least a better understanding

I wouldn't say that ensuring thousands of people aren't killed in accidents or natural disasters is 'to the finest detail' if I'm honest.

Google tells me Deism is "belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe."

Feels like asking me if I would worship Startibartfast if I'm honest. Feels like a nonsense. No, I don't believe in a supreme being.

Whst if the concept of good and evil only exist in the mind of man and god contains everything all at once. It’s man than separates it out and judges

I didn't mention good or evil. I'm talking about if there's a god that created bone cancer in children but refuses to step in and stop it from happening to them, or stop them from being in pain - why would I worship a cruel 'god' like that?

I quite like the Blake quote “Jesus Christ is the only god, and so am I and so are you”

What things in what churches do you find “bloody ridiculous” and why?

why do think a god necessarily has anything to do with churches?

Almost without exception everyone here has said they are atheists because they have no proof. To me, if you set out a hypothesis of “There isn’t a God”
This isn’t falsifiable, we can neither prove nor disprove it, so I wonder how people get from there might be or there might not be as would be suggested using science to there definitely cannot be one, it’s a leap of faith, I struggle to understand it intellectually how this leap of faith is made by those who claim to be evidence driven.

This paragraph was a bit confusing but I think I understand what you are saying.

I don't agree that you can say not believing is equally a leap of faith as believing. It is the default position to not believe in something when there's no evidence it exists. It's not a leap of faith, it's just refusal to make a leap of faith until provided with any reason to have faith.

As others have said - and I'm not trying to be patronising here it's just literally the case - I don't spend my time thinking there might be a god in the same way I don't spend my time thinking there might be unicorns or dragons. There aren't. There is no reason to think there are. If I saw one or some kind of concrete evidence, I'd consider it then. But whilst I'm aware people have looked and nobody has ever seen one, and there is no physical evidence, the default position is to assume there isn't.

I do get what you're saying about people saying there definitely could not be a god being unprovable and therefore a leap of faith similar to believing in one. But they are not on the same level - thinking there definitely isn't is a much smaller leap as there isn't any evidence to think otherwise. You are "leaping" to the logical conclusion. Comparatively, believing there definitely is when there is no proof is a significantly larger leap.

There is no evidence at all, just man-made stories repeated over centuries. Plethora of evidence for big-bang, evolution, etc.

If there is a god, it’s not a being I’m impressed with. Why would a creator inflict so many horrors on its creations?

I think @aSofaNearYou has explained things really well, that's how I feel too.

You seem to think the existence of a God necessitates worship, why? What form should that take?

Even if we went with an interventionist God in the context of eternity a few thousand deaths is very much fine detail.

Which probably brings us on to why did God create the universe, which would include say children’s cancers. The most popular answer I’ve found is so god could experience itself, as God includes everything there would need to be a reflection of everything for god to experience. This would include things we see as good and evil/bad, pain and pleasure, happiness and sadness. This kind loving God is really a mainstream Christian thing, most religions have good/bad gods. I mean look at the demiurge creator of the gnostics (shorthand here for the general beliefs of what we now refer to as gnostics but they were very separate groups)

I don't think there needs to be confidence to not believe. In fact, it was something that irritated me about my kids' school when they came home with worksheets with a list of reasons and they had to write if it was a good enough reason to not believe in God -- why does the reason need to be good enough for anyone other than the individual? They aren't going to do that with someone's reason in believing in any specific divine power is good enough.

I don't think the term nullfidian is going to catch on, but I think the lack of faith in any religion is probably more accurate for some people, me included. I do not have strong opinions on the potential for the divine or deities, but the idea that any group has it all figured out down to speaking for the divine's wants and desires is something I do feel strongly, if only from seeing how often confidence in that has caused harm.

That said, there are traditional groups around the world that don't have a religious system, including some hunter-gatherer groups and some groups we call religions don't always have a belief in the Divine - for example there are Hindu groups going back many centuries that have agnostic or atheist philosophies. Religion, as the concept we have now, came after the Reformation, that's how before it we have secular and religious priests. Before that, religion was a code of practice to both god(s) and other people, a religious priest had joined an order and taken on a specific code of behaviour while a secular one hadn't. In the reformation, that changed to internal beliefs and worship and as time went on, there was an effort to apply the concept to other groups, whether that Christian model worked for them or not as well as a lot of dividing groups up which is how we had people then claiming Unitarians are atheists because their believe in the Divine didn't match a specific trininarian view.

One of the first uses of atheist was those not following the state system of gods and was applied to Christians and Jewish people. Atheist has long just been a way of to dismiss people.

Sorry it wasn’t clear, but I think you’ve managed to understand me nevertheless.

I guess, to me, where there is neither prove of existence or non-existence the default position for me would be “i don’t know” ie agnostic. To move away from that , would, to me take an active decision. I understand that people move towards a positive yes there is a God through a belief that requires no evidence. So I understand that.

Now this is the interesting point that I’m trying to grasp, what makes a person an atheist? Now I have assumed the default position is agnostic because there is no proof either way, but you’re saying the default position with lack of evidence is atheism? Maybe I’ve been asking the wrong question, or assuming the wrong thing. That’s really helpful thank you. People aren’t even really asking the question is there a god? Where the default position e we pull be agnostic if they asked. If the question isn’t asked the default position is atheism? Is that correct? (Sorry if a bit muddled - it’s a stream of consciousness)

Where the default position WOULD be agnostic if they asked. -rather

@OMG12 "AnywaY @CurlewKate, firstly as stated else where I’m interested in what makes people 100% certain of something when they are bound up in scientific methodology when there is no conclusive proof either way, what then males them
atheist rather than agnostic?"

Ah. Well, about 97 (I exaggerate slightly) people have explainer that to you. So why do you keep asking?

You literally asked her what she wanted from this thread and when she responded to reiterate what she was asking in the OP you asked why she keeps asking.
Do you see how that makes no sense and is unnecessarily confrontational?
FWIW I'm finding this thread and the logical debates from thoughtful posters fascinating and I am learning a lot so I'm grateful to the OP for starting this thread.

Because actually they haven’t, I’ve mainly been inundated with dragons and unicorns and been called an “nutter” several times. Generally “lack of proof” but not really answering why they are an atheist rather than angnostiv Although @aSofaNearYou has just explained something really well which has really aided my understanding

Yes I think some of the posters on here have been really good, I like good debate. It’s the best way to learn.