Why I became an atheist

This is a common question asked to atheists by theists. I typed up this response for another, but figured I'd stimulate discussion here while I'm at it.



Things I "knew" at the time (of being Christian):
1) Evil exists in the world.
2) God is real.

I decided that a moral, omnipotent, omniscient god cannot allow evil. It just can't. I think that's contradictory. We, as humans, hold ourselves to higher standards than apathy. It's not an admirable quality to allow evil. So, I now knew this:
1) Evil exists in the world.
2) The god I believed in did not exist exactly as I had believed (all of omniscient, omnipotent, and moral).
3) God was either not: A) omniscient, B) omnipotent, C) moral, or D) non-existent.

A god that can stop evil but doesn't know about it, doesn't know about you, doesn't know about your attempted communication with or worship of it, in no way deserves worship.
A god that knows there is evil but can't stop it is not a god.
A god that both knows about and can stop evil but doesn't is immoral. That god is below me, and I think anyone who thinks otherwise is belittling the human race to lower than what they proclaim their religion teaches. Do right. Stop evil. That is what we as a society do. That is what we as people should do. That is not what god is doing. A god that is morally inferior to people is not a god worth worshipping.
And, of course, lastly, I settled with there simply isn't a god.

For me, it just doesn't make any sense.
Because I don't see any proof of a god, or how a "god" is effecting the world in anyway.
It just seems like people need something to fall back on

GAMEchief wrote:

This is a common question asked to atheists by theists. I typed up this response for another, but figured I'd stimulate discussion here while I'm at it.



Things I "knew" at the time (of being Christian):
1) Evil exists in the world.
2) God is real.

I decided that a moral, omnipotent, omniscient god cannot allow evil. It just can't. I think that's contradictory. We, as humans, hold ourselves to higher standards than apathy. It's not an admirable quality to allow evil. So, I now knew this:
1) Evil exists in the world.
2) The god I believed in did not exist exactly as I had believed (all of omniscient, omnipotent, and moral).
3) God was either not: A) omniscient, B) omnipotent, C) moral, or D) non-existent.

A god that can stop evil but doesn't know about it, doesn't know about you, doesn't know about your attempted communication with or worship of it, in no way deserves worship.
A god that knows there is evil but can't stop it is not a god.
A god that both knows about and can stop evil but doesn't is immoral. That god is below me, and I think anyone who thinks otherwise is belittling the human race to lower than what they proclaim their religion teaches. Do right. Stop evil. That is what we as a society do. That is what we as people should do. That is not what god is doing. A god that is morally inferior to people is not a god worth worshipping.
And, of course, lastly, I settled with there simply isn't a god.

Evil is a separate entity than God. God is always fighting evil forces in the world.

If evil happens and god is omnipotent, then he is not always fight evil forces in the world. Evil happens, factually. Ergo either god is not omnipotent or god is not good.

There's a lot of reasons why someone would believe God doesn't exist. But there also may be things in the world impalpable to the human being. There could be intangibles that can't necessarily be explained by pure Science or logic.

I think it's naive not to believe just because you don't have concrete evidence. Honestly, I'm someone who has a neutral stance in this regard. But in a world as complex as this where everything isn't completely explained, I think there are things that exist that can't be touched upon.

The Unintelligible wrote:

/

gtfo of rank 3 lgg
that's my spot

I have like ~5x the post count you have. If anything I'm being cheated.

The Unintelligible wrote:

I think there are things that exist that can't be touched upon.

Surely. But we don't assume they exist first, and certainly don't dedicate our lives, finances, or opinions to them.

GAMEchief wrote:

If evil happens and god is omnipotent, then he is not always fight evil forces in the world. Evil happens, factually. Ergo either god is not omnipotent or god is not good.

God's good, but he is fair. The evil in the world has been created by humans as well as Satan/forces of darkness. God never said you would live in a perfect world. In fact, God says the only perfect world is his kingdom/temple

GAMEchief wrote:

Surely. But we don't assume they exist first, and certainly don't dedicate our lives, finances, or opinions to them.

What do you dedicate your life too, then?

I don't really know if I'm atheist.

While I don't believe in religions like Christianity or anything like that, and I don't really think there's a god, Atheists just annoy me lol. They have to shove their non-religion down everyone's throats.

For religions, I would have to say the only one I semi-believe in is Buddhism. Besides that, I would say I'm pretty much Atheist.

Why? I don't know, I just think people make up these things about heaven and stuff to make them feel like life isn't pointless and that you go somewhere after life. In truth, once you stop breathing it's not like you're going to remember your death or anything, so what's there to be scared of in death? Whenever people say "Oh, that would be a horrible way to die!" it annoys me. It's like, the person was on an adrenaline high and barely aware of what was happening for the last minute of their life even if they were suffering, and then it was all over and the suffering stopped and the person was dead, and they didn't remember anything anymore. Why is it that horrible? It's only horrible if the person is left alive, because then they have to suffer in agony.

A god that both knows about and can stop evil but doesn't is immoral. That god is below me, and I think anyone who thinks otherwise is belittling the human race to lower than what they proclaim their religion teaches. Do right. Stop evil. That is what we as a society do. That is what we as people should do. That is not what god is doing. A god that is morally inferior to people is not a god worth worshipping.
And, of course, lastly, I settled with there simply isn't a god.

If you were created by an immoral god, what would give you, as his creation, the right to elevate yourself above him due to his lack of morality. I'd assume a lack of morality would put humanity and god on the same level morally. After all, some religions say we were made in the image of god, and we're sure as hell not all moral people. What makes a god worth worshiping? For a matter of fact, what makes a god a god? Superior morality coupled with absolute power? If he gave you life in the first place would that make him worthy of your worship? So many questions, so little time.

I have a long winded and incomplete opinion on my own religious beliefs though, but it comes down to me not wanting to devote my life to uncertainty. I too believe we simply can't explain things, and in my opinion, wasting your life trying to comprehend the incomprehensible is pointless. After all, if we could comprehend everything, that would make us all gods.

Flareboy323 wrote:

...Atheists just annoy me lol. They have to shove their non-religion down everyone's throats.

That's just stereotypes maybe?
And surely isn't a reason to not be atheist

Use wrote:

That's just stereotypes maybe?
And surely isn't a reason to not be atheist

It's enough of a reason for me, at least...

Most religions tell people to do the right thing. I'm not sure which ones get people to bad stuff, maybe besides Satanism and other esoteric religions from 17th-19th centuries, but I digress. You can't say religion is bad because the adherents are complete assholes.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Most religions tell people to do the right thing. I'm not sure which ones get people to bad stuff, maybe besides Satanism and other esoteric religions from 17th-19th centuries, but I digress. You can't say religion is bad because the adherents are complete assholes.

Yeah, I agree. My thing about religion:

The Bible is a fictional book with stories that are written to show people doing the right thing and being nice people. It's just a book that teaches you to be nice and respect your fellow man, I don't think it was ever meant to be twisted into how much it's believed today.

It would be like having a Boy Scouts' manual 600 years from now, where it just says "Do a good turn daily" and has a bunch of stories about boy scouts walking old ladies across the street and things like that, but in 600 years people might live by it and go "IF YOU DON'T HELP OLD LADIES ACROSS THE STREET, YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL!" and stuff like that. I guess I just feel it's been twisted out of shape, I feel it was just a fictional book filled with stories of people that are good examples, nothing more than that. Nothing we should be worshiping and living by, just something you might read occasionally because they're stories about people doing nice things.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

God's good, but he is fair. The evil in the world has been created by humans as well as Satan/forces of darkness. God never said you would live in a perfect world. In fact, God says the only perfect world is his kingdom/temple

Then God is evil for putting us in an imperfect world in which the good experience evil.

Or at the very least, he is less moral than humans. He is less moral than a standard I hold the average person to.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

What do you dedicate your life too, then?

Whatever I want.

Learning. Art. Being happy. I think something that would be great to accomplish is a legacy. Live forever in name and tale and contribution to mankind, not in an unproveable, unmeasurable, subjective, metaphysical idea of a drugged-up-forced-bliss scenario while everyone you loved is being burned eternally for not worshipping correctly the god that put them into an unfair world.

I think my dedication to human advancement is much more productive.

Flareboy323 wrote:

I don't really know if I'm atheist.

While I don't believe in religions like Christianity or anything like that, and I don't really think there's a god, Atheists just annoy me lol. They have to shove their non-religion down everyone's throats.

/cringe

So you annoy even yourself?

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

God is always fighting evil forces in the world.

God would not fight anything, it's god. It wold be all powerful. If god is real satan is a human construct devised to make us feel better about our imperfections.

@ Charles: I think the assumption that you could somehow understand or even begin to perceive god is presumptuous. I feel that evil is not a thing/event but a lack of good, like darkness is not a thing it is the lack of light. I also do not believe that god exists with in the universe. So I see no problem with the assumption that god is good and the world is evil, as I do not believe that god exists within the confines of the world and the absence of good/god is evil. My general understanding of god is that it must exist outside of our universe and is for lack of a better way to understand it the laws by which the universe came into being or rather the laws of that which surround our universe and brought it's set of laws into being.
It makes more sense to me that a god would not craft the universe in detail star by star, but rather think of a set of laws and conceptualize the way they play out and let it go. In relation to that I'm not entirely convinced we exist in the way we think we do either. We understand everything as physical yet we also know that if you really break down the universe and add up all the everything you come up with nothing. Mathematically we don't exist. All of that often makes me think that the reason you can't find god is that there isn't a god to find in the way we'd look for him since we'd more or less just be a thought and I don't think the moral argument comes into play there then because we're not in a world that god allowed evil in, we're a passing thought that because it exists in the mind of god essentially allows us to play out our universe's existence forever. I'm not real proposing we're in some being's dream but that we might not exist how we think we do and that the logic by which we understand our existence probably doesn't apply outside of it which I feel that that outside is most likely "god".

Then God is evil for putting us in an imperfect world in which the good experience evil.

Or at the very least, he is less moral than humans. He is less moral than a standard I hold the average person to.

Humans are immoral as hell

C0FFINCASE wrote:

God would not fight anything, it's god. It wold be all powerful. If god is real satan is a human construct devised to make us feel better about our imperfections.

@ Charles: I think the assumption that you could somehow understand or even begin to perceive god is presumptuous. I feel that evil is not a thing/event but a lack of good, like darkness is not a thing it is the lack of light. I also do not believe that god exists with in the universe. So I see no problem with the assumption that god is good and the world is evil, as I do not believe that god exists within the confines of the world and the absence of good/god is evil. My general understanding of god is that it must exist outside of our universe and is for lack of a better way to understand it the laws by which the universe came into being or rather the laws of that which surround our universe and brought it's set of laws into being.
It makes more sense to me that a god would not craft the universe in detail star by star, but rather think of a set of laws and conceptualize the way they play out and let it go. In relation to that I'm not entirely convinced we exist in the way we think we do either. We understand everything as physical yet we also know that if you really break down the universe and add up all the everything you come up with nothing. Mathematically we don't exist. All of that often makes me think that the reason you can't find god is that there isn't a god to find in the way we'd look for him since we'd more or less just be a thought and I don't think the moral argument comes into play there then because we're not in a world that god allowed evil in, we're a passing thought that because it exists in the mind of god essentially allows us to play out our universe's existence forever. I'm not real proposing we're in some being's dream but that we might not exist how we think we do and that the logic by which we understand our existence probably doesn't apply outside of it which I feel that that outside is most likely "god".

God leaves sentient beings in evil universe => God is immoral.
You didn't really explain how at all it's okay for an omnipotent being to allow evil to occur. Just because a god doesn't create it doesn't mean it's not immoral not to stop it. Similarly, it's immoral to watch someone die instead of save them. It's a standard we hold humans to, so it's a standard we should have gold to. And he doesn't meet that challenge, ergo an immoral god, and unworthy of worship.

Also mathematically, we do exist. I don't know why you would think that.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Humans are immoral as hell

I agree. They do not meet my standard of morality. Neither does god. I think it'd be hypocritical to give a god, of all entities, a free pass on moral behavior. Especially if I am supposed to proclaim the moral superiority of and dedicate my life to this supposedly moral being.

Drakonid wrote:

http://forum.logicalgamers.com/weighted-discussion/47724-free-will.html

What about it?

It's religion's answer to the existance of evil.

A) If only it existed,

B) Free will doesn't mean evil people have to be allowed to kill good people. Separation, objective or detectable measurements for evil, answering prayers, helping evil people who want to be good be good (since neither prayer nor religion decrease the recidivism rate.

C) Free will doesn't mean evil has free reign. The God in the Bible, for example, interacted plenty of times to stop evil. Why doesn't this god do that? I don't think any answer is morally satisfactory for an omnipotent being.

And no, Charles, I'm annoyed by the Stereotypical atheist which happens to be about 90% of them.

It's like the saying about an engineer: "How can you tell when someone is an engineer? Don't worry, they'll fucking tell you."

The same saying goes for atheists.

GAMEchief wrote:

God leaves sentient beings in evil universe => God is immoral.
You didn't really explain how at all it's okay for an omnipotent being to allow evil to occur. Just because a god doesn't create it doesn't mean it's not immoral not to stop it. Similarly, it's immoral to watch someone die instead of save them. It's a standard we hold humans to, so it's a standard we should have gold to. And he doesn't meet that challenge, ergo an immoral god, and unworthy of worship.

Also mathematically, we do exist. I don't know why you would think that.

Morality is a human construct, why do you think it applies to god? As a mortal your logic is limited at best if it even really is logic at all. Logically within the universe 2+2=4, but outside of it maybe 2+2=green. I don't see how you can think to hold god to the standard of human morality when god would ultimately be above anything human, including our understanding of logic and morality.
Also I'm not convinced that its immoral to allow evil.
If humans are immoral beasts who's actions are preordained by the universe, why is it evil for them to suffer if the universe by design makes them suffer? It's not evil to let a clock run just because the act of running makes the parts wear out. Nor is it evil to let a wolf eat a rabbit. You accept those as mere fact of existence. You don't call the universe imperfect just because the rabbit dies or the watch will eventually break. Why are you so important that your suffering must mean that the universe is imperfect. Why does your suffering constitute evil? If it's part of the very design of what appears an otherwise perfect system and has no negative impact on the system at larger then perhaps you're just an insignificant part of the machine that is meant to break and wear out any way.

I think we don't exist mathematically because when you add up the matter and anti-matter in the universe, you find that everything cancels out. The universe is mostly space with equal parts matter and anti-matter. So if you account for everything in existence mathematically and get nothing do we really exist? Does the mere fact that we perceive existence mean we exist? Perceiving free will doesn't mean we have free will.

I was catholic, then i was atheist, then i was agnostic, and now, i have the answer: apatheist.
simple.

God intervenes when he chooses. In the bible the Israelites were in Egypt for a few centuries before God allowed Moses to help them.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Morality is a human construct, why do you think it applies to god?

Why do you think it doesn't apply to god?

As a mortal your logic is limited at best if it even really is logic at all.

Is your position really "My position makes no logical sense, which is why pointing out logical problems is futile"? Because not interested in subscribing to your philosophy, sorry.

It's not evil to let a clock run just because the act of running makes the parts wear out. Nor is it evil to let a wolf eat a rabbit. You accept those as mere fact of existence.

Oh, okay. It's not evil to smash a clock with a hammer or to hunt a deer, ergo murder is not evil either.

Are you just playing Devil's advocate here? None of your position makes any sense.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

God intervenes when he chooses. In the bible the Israelites were in Egypt for a few centuries before God allowed Moses to help them.

Precisely the issue. He chooses not to intervene, and that is a behavior of a god I cannot worship.

I have been exploring the world of Christianity, and even if He doesn't exist, I like the community. I like all of the great people that don't treat you like complete piles of manure.
If I was PROVEN that God isn't real, I would stay in the Christian community because I love it so much. It just fills that spot that would otherwise feel empty. This is just my opinion.

GAMEchief wrote:

Why do you think it doesn't apply to god?

GAMEchief wrote:

Is your position really "My position makes no logical sense, which is why pointing out logical problems is futile"? Because not interested in subscribing to your philosophy, sorry.

Because something that is truly god would transcend human understanding and the physical reality we can perceive. It would be beyond understanding and comprehension. If there is a god then you argue it must be good, moral, logical, etc . I'm arguing these labels and ideas have no meaning to a god, a being that could create a universe and all existence would never be burdened by such things or at least our limited perception of them. It would have a hand in their creation and could not be constrained by it's own creations or even judged according to them by our understanding of them, since god would better understand them. Perhaps morality within the universe is like a scale, maybe good and evil just have to end up equal in the end.

GAMEchief wrote:

Oh, okay. It's not evil to smash a clock with a hammer or to hunt a deer, ergo murder is not evil either.

Are you just playing Devil's advocate here? None of your position makes any sense.

Murder isn't evil. Evil isn't necessarily evil. Evil and morality involve the ability to do otherwise, in a deterministic universe there is no otherwise so how can you hold anyone accountable for anything really? We merely act like free will and accountability are a thing so we can have a society.

Also yeah, I'm kind of playing Devil's advocate.

Also who says God has to be good?

Not directly jumping into the topic of "does god exist?"
I have to point out that "good" and "evil" are completely based on perception.
There are some things so common that we do them on an almost daily basis. These things may be seen as completely sacrilegious and "evil to another person, and vise versa.
Personally I don't believe in the idea of something or an action being completely "good" or completely "evil".
They're all actions with their own motivation. Just like killing someone is normally perceived as evil, but in certain circumstances it's justifiable and there for would not be considered "evil".
Since morality is so subjective I think it'd be hard to define anything considerably "evil" or "good".
In example, what if a man steals bread from another richer man, to give to someone more in need?
Some might argue that stealing is wrong, so the man did an evil deed regardless of his motivations for doing so.
Others might argue that this man did a good deed by giving something to someone more in need.


I feel like it's way too foolish to really try and pin any sort of idea on something, and turn it into a good or evil being/force/thing/what have you.

Granted my personal opinion on god is:
I think there may or may not be something out there, something we don't understand but it isn't some omnipotent man floating along in a cloud arm rest. I surely cannot believe in any "god", especially one personified as a "heavenly father". That seems all too human if you ask me. I think there may be rules to the way the universe works, and maybe something there to keep the universe from completely spiraling out of control... But is a "god", I don't believe so. I believe it'd be more akin to energy/rules/laws/and physics. In the end I believe anything is possible, but almost none of it is probable.

GAMEchief wrote:

A) If only it existed,

B) Free will doesn't mean evil people have to be allowed to kill good people. Separation, objective or detectable measurements for evil, answering prayers, helping evil people who want to be good be good (since neither prayer nor religion decrease the recidivism rate.

C) Free will doesn't mean evil has free reign. The God in the Bible, for example, interacted plenty of times to stop evil. Why doesn't this god do that? I don't think any answer is morally satisfactory for an omnipotent being.

B/C)Ideally, it does.

Fuck that shit, go Agnostic.
Because really when it comes to people and beliefs, who gives a shit?

Raivu wrote:

Fuck that shit, go Agnostic.
Because really when it comes to people and beliefs, who gives a shit?

That's rather boring.

Robertrox wrote:

I have been exploring the world of Christianity, and even if He doesn't exist, I like the community. I like all of the great people that don't treat you like complete piles of manure.
If I was PROVEN that God isn't real, I would stay in the Christian community because I love it so much. It just fills that spot that would otherwise feel empty. This is just my opinion.

You'd be an atheist in a Christian community. Your beliefs and your participation in the community don't have to be correlated.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Because something that is truly god would transcend human understanding and the physical reality we can perceive.

Our being ignorant of a function of the universe is not the same as it being possible to contradict our knowledge. 1+1 will never equal anything other than 2, no matter how advanced our mathematics get. No matter how many systems we invent or equations or calculations we make and perform. When something comes out saying 1+1 isn't 2, we know that something is wrong. We don't attribute it to some metaphysical knowledge beyond logic. Because that would make absolutely no sense. And saying "my god doesn't have to make logical sense so stop using logic against it" is, again, not a philosophy I subscribe to.

I'm arguing these labels and ideas have no meaning to a god, a being that could create a universe and all existence would never be burdened by such things or at least our limited perception of them. It would have a hand in their creation and could not be constrained by it's own creations or even judged according to them by our understanding of them, since god would better understand them. Perhaps morality within the universe is like a scale, maybe good and evil just have to end up equal in the end.

Like I said, any god that allows evil or immorality is not a god worth worshipping or dedicating any amount of time to appeasing. Just because an evil person doesn't care if they're evil does not in any way mean we should idolize them. You are describing an immoral god, and who cares what that god thinks of itself? Why is that even relevant? It is morally inferior to humans, and yes that is my perception of morality. And my perception of morality is the only important one. I hate to bring in Godwin's Law, but I can't imagine how you could think, "Maybe Hitler is just using a different logic than we are, you guys. Don't judge him. You just can't understand how his metaphysical thoughts are different than your own." He was an immoral and awful human being, and not being human does not excuse such behavior. We neutralize animals that kill humans, even though their behavior is not self-perceived as immoral. We don't allow it. We don't tolerate it. We certainly don't justify it as moral. Someone or something can be immoral without its own conscious awareness of it, and something that is immoral again should not be idolized.

in a deterministic universe there is no otherwise so how can you hold anyone accountable for anything really?

Strawman. You shouldn't discuss the philosophies of a deterministic universe without first understanding the pathway to accepting the existence of a deterministic universe.

Evil isn't necessarily evil.

Also yeah, I'm kind of playing Devil's advocate.

You don't say.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Also who says God has to be good?

He doesn't, but it does benefit for me or anyone to make the "leap of faith" that a god exists given absolutely no objective foundation for such a belief. The reason people make that "leap of faith" is the presumption that some god is good and that we owe that god that leap of faith in gratitude for our existence. If god is not good, we do not owe that god any such thing, and making the leap of faith of a god's existence in the first place is justified. If god isn't good, why bother believing in a god without first having evidence of a god? All supposed evidence of a "good god" is of one who, in practice through objective observation, is not good, thus is not evidence of a good god. So there is no evidence for a good god, there is justification for a leap of faith, so there is no reason to believe in the first place. >thread title