Atheist: what made you an atheist and wouldn't it be better to be agnostic?

Brandon,

Thanks for the question. I like when theists actually try to understand atheists, and vice versa. :)

I assume you've got the point by now that agnosticism is a position on knowledge and atheism is a position on the existence of god, so you would get that I'm not atheist instead of agnostic or would consider changing from atheist to agnostic. I'm both atheist and agnostic. If asked about the existence of god, I say that I am atheist, because I don't hold a belief that god exists. Simply by failing to hold this belief, I technically become atheist. I don't have to hold the belief that "god absolutely, without a doubt, is proven to not exist" to be atheist.

And I don't hold this belief. As stated, I am also agnostic. I don't believe one could either directly prove or disprove the existence of something supernatural. (I'm also postmodern, so I don't believe objectivity is totally possible, but that's neither here nor there.) Empirical science/experimentation measures the natural world. By definition, it couldn't measure the supernatural. I do not think you have or could have objective proof that god exists, because I think such proof is literally impossible. That is not to say that I don't think you could have evidence for god. I think any personal experiences you've had with (what you interpret as) god count as evidence. I'm also not saying that you don't have reasons for believing in god. Obviously, there are a lot of arguments for the existence of god.

However, I don't think your evidence or reasons are objective. Which is fine; I don't think my experiences and reasons for believing what I do are objective either. ...But I do find the evidence and reasons for your position very weak and I do not buy them. I think there are other, better explanations for your experiences and I think your arguments have holes in them and make assumptions that shouldn't be taken as given.

As for what made me an atheist: a feeling made me an atheist. I felt the immediacy and ultimacy of existence apart from a supernatural reality. My emotional/experiential intuition is atheistic. Personal reasoning made me atheist. I spend a lot of time thinking about the world and how it works, and religion and how it works, and the nature of reality, truth, and meaning. The conclusions I've come to so far are pretty postmodern, among other things, and I think the world makes a lot of sense without god and less sense with any particular mainstream religious understanding. I think the basic Christian narrative doesn't make sense (the best I can say about it is that it sometimes seems internally consistent, if you add a generous portion of "we just can't understand," but I don't think it is consisent with reality and certainly not with my own reasoning). A lack of positive, objective evidence made me atheist. (Since I don't believe there can even be positive, objective evidence, you can probably rest assured that I will never become theist.) Exposure to other voices in Christianity and other religious and non-religious view points made me atheist, since I was able to compare them and see that all of them had some strengths and some weaknesses, and none of them made total sense.

Is that what you are asking? I'm not sure how else to explain it and still be honest to my experience. The fact that I didn't believe in god made me atheist. My experiences are reasons are subjective, but I think they paint a more accurate picture of reality than yours do. (Obviously I think my opinions are right or I wouldn't hold them.) If you are looking for a single argument that is "making" people atheist, you're not going to find it.

Also, please note that I don't hate the idea of god or religion. I'm a Religious Studies major and LOVE talking with people about religion and their ideas about god. :D I also defend Christianity against people who put it down. (I also defend atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism... basically, if anybody puts anything down for what I consider unfair reasons, I will defend it. I'm naturally belligerent.) I think there are great interpretations of Christianity and I also think there are very poor/hurtful interpretations of Christianity. I look to some parts of the Bible for moral guidance and I think other parts of the Bible are morally abhorent. But ultimately, I don't think that god is real or that the Bible is accurate about the existence of god. All that is just to give you a more nuanced understanding of my relationship with religion and Christianity in particular.

I would love to hear your response if you have any comments/questions. But I realize this probably just looks like a wall of text, so I wouldn't blame your for skipping over it. :) Also I hope you don't think anything I said as an attack on your beliefs; just trying to accurately explain my experience.

I'm an atheist because there is no evidence to suggest that a supernatural being of any description exists. True, I don't *know* one doesn't exist, but I see no point in sitting on the fence just because one might.

On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence for natural processes which simply don't require input from a deity.

There's simply no reason for me to entertain the possibility that a deity exists (ie, be agnostic). If somebody presents evidence for a deity then fine, I'll take a look. Until that happens I'm comfortable with the idea that a deity doesn't exist.

That's why I'm an atheist rather than an agnostic.

EDIT: "none of you are telling me the main argument that made you atheist though"... okay, try this. Nothing "made" me atheist. I've always been atheist because, as I said earlier, there's no evidence to suggest the existence of deities. As a result, the concept of religion and deities has never made any sense to me.

"blindly hate god"

An atheist cannot hate god. Atheists don't believe there IS a god to hate.

"lack of proof doesn't disprove something"

Yes, it sort of does. Anything is possible, but if there is NO evidence, it can be assumed it's made up. The idea of a christian god comes from nowhere but one book, and THAT could have come from anywhere. Unicorns are disproven because they have never been seen, and there is no proof that they exist. there are, however, several books about unicorns. i still don't believe they could exist because there's no reason for me to believe.

I do not hate god. You believe in god, and so does a Hindu. I do not hate two gods. And so on.

I am an agnostic atheist. What does this mean? Atheist means I do not believe in any gods, agnostic means I do not claim that no gods exist. I do not know, but simply, there is no evidence to believe that there is a god, yours or theirs.

So I guess there is no debate here, I am an agnostic, and since I have no knowledge of the existence of any god, I am an atheist.

By the way, I was raised to be a cristian, and never did I hear about the concept of atheism until I was 22 year old. What separated me from my belief was a passage in "Timequake" by Kurt Vonnegut. In that passage, Vonnegut describes god as male and satan as female. Vonnegut goes on to say that satan invented plants for us to smoke and sexual positions for us to try out.

At this point I came to two conclusions. My belief in christianity was based on the bible, which in turn exhibited gross machismo and a limitation of natural human desires like sex.

Besides that, I realized that belief in god is influenced by time and place of birth. Born in the 1700s in colonial US, boom Puritan. Born in India? Hindu. Born in Jamaica? etc etc.

So thats my story, respond if you wish.

Atheists don't "hate god" -- they don't believe there is a god, so there is no reason to hate something that isn;t real.

Being agnostic is, to me, cheating. It would be a false belief. So far, there is NO evidence that any deity exists, so choosing agnosticism would simply be kowtowing to popular conception.

It's like unicorns. When I see one, I'll believe in them. Until then, I am an aunicornist. (I am also an aleprechaunist, and an amanticorist, and an aslanist. Sad about that last one--but that's the way it is)

I don't hate something I don't believe in, and neither does any other atheist I know.

The evidence I found was lacking; which is the reason for my atheism. Get it? :)

It might seem like a more "reasonable" position to call one's self an agnostic, but I actively do not believe your god exists. I know this will probably cause you some level of discomfort, but I assure you, this comment is not meant as an attack on you. I simply do not believe. I feel the same way about leprechauns, fairies, goblins, demons, and Klingons.

Edit: Yes we did. There is no evidence to support the claim "a god exists" - so we don't believe.

Why is it that ignorant theists always try to associate the disbelief of a deity with "hate".

Disbelief is just that disbelief. One can not hate that which does not exist.

By your logic it would be better to be an agnostic that a theist as the lack of proof does not support a gods existence either.

It is followers like you who have validate the fallacy and ignorance in theism. In my personal experience theists do more to validate atheism than atheists do.

Think about it!

The fact that God is logically impossible is all I need to completely reject the assertion that God exists.

Christians define God as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. They also claim that this all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God will send those of us who do not believe in him to eternal suffering in hell. This brings up an interesting set of contradictions.

1) How could an all-loving God send anyone to hell, or even allow something like hell to exist? If he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, then God would be able to make hell not exist so there would be no reason for him to send anyone there.

2) How could an all-powerful God have any need for us to believe in him? If he is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, why not just appear here on Earth so that everyone would know? An all-powerful being would have no need for faith.

3) How could an all-knowing God create us, knowing in advance every decision we would make - knowing that I would reject him based simply on the fact that there is no evidence to support his existence, knowing exactly what it would take to prove to me that he does exist, being fully capable and motivated to do exactly that, but choosing not to do it and instead punishing me for all eternity for a thought crime commited during a finite existence? It hardly seems like a fitting punishment for a mistake that I am not guilty of.

Because Christians cannot provide a coherent and logically sound definition for their god, I am inclined, and rightfully so, to dismiss their claim as complete and utter bullshit.

I think you should look up "atheist" in a dictionary. I am unable to hate your gods because I find them to be make believe. You don't hate goblins and I don't hate gods.

If I thought agnosticism was a better stance, I would be agnostic. That's how that works.

True, a lack of proof doesn't disprove something. But it certainly means that the thing in question should not be called real. Unicorns could exist, but we don't say that. We say they DON'T exist.