Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Am An Atheist

I once wrote a post on the EP back in my edgy atheist days. While I say I remember it more as a joke than anything else, I did have quite a few valid points, including my analysis of intelligent religious people. My argument was that those who are intelligent, will question their beliefs whether they choose to hold onto them or not.

Challenging your own beliefs is necessary part of critical thinking, and if you are incapable of doing so than you are simply incapable of critical thinking. This would be how to objectively identify a stupid religious person. Well the theists of EP didn't take very kindly to this, called me arrogant, which I admitted to more to parody their sheer irrationality. I was 17 at the time and tempted to making a second post remarking at the fact that some theists apparently can't read comprehensively.

Because it just seemed to me like the only people who could be offended by that post, were those among the religious who never doubted them for a second, not even bothered to ponder at the possibility that they may be wrong, and in their stupidity, they projected their own meaningless arrogance onto me.

But there were so many who got offended I just felt like I was too successful in my analysis of them. The truly intelligent among the religious, never would have taken that kind of offence. It was kind of strange having arguments with those imbeciles at the time. I had never actually seen so many in one place before.

And of course it was boring as well, because none of them were able to discern a thought of their own from what everyone else was saying. It was like looking at this enormous hive mind, and while I did laugh at their pathetic online vitriol, I also realised how people like this would have been dangerous in the past.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
MeadowLark4 · 26-30
@dunpender: Okay say someone walks up to you and makes the claim that a forty meter long extant species of poisonous viper, is responsible for the decline in the whale populations along the coast of Wales. You don't ultimately know if such a viper exists, but you are also not obligated to believe in his claim until he can produce sound evidence for it. That's what it means to be an agnostic atheist. We do not say, "God doesn't exist," but rather, "There isn't sufficient evidence for the existence of a god, so I am not obligated to believe there is one." We have no proof (and actually in science nothing is proven anyway,) that there isn't a god. We just don't believe; we don't rely on blind faith the way many of the religious do.

If there was evidence for the existence of god, it would be up to the gnostics to form an antithesis, and find evidence against the existence of god, but as you said and were right to say, no such evidence exists.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
MeadowLark4 · 26-30
@dunpender: My argument is that there is no credible evidence, but even this statement can be easily misunderstood. Allow me to clarify my point. My claim that no credible evidence exists is fairly well supported, firstly by the position of god placed beyond time and space by religious people, where his existence cannot be quantified by any form of analytical technology available to us, and secondly, that I have yet to see a single person of faith provide evidence for it. For the former, I argue that evidence simply doesn't exist by the very logic of the people who believe in god. However, if someone were to provide evidence for their god, I would listen to what they have to say. Whether or not I accept or reject god after realising he exists is a separate decision as well, better saved for another time as I am not here to talk about anti-theism.

However it is interesting that you bring that up, as no one is immune from dogmatic thinking. The only dogma I'd be willing to except would be mathematical proofs, which are held as absolutely true not because math applies to the universe, but because math is a language humans developed to help better explain the universe. This language does have laws like any other, but of course it is also constantly changing. New equations are developed as our understanding improves.
SW-User
There's a big mistake in your way of thinking that's entirely consistent with being a lifetime skeptic or doubter. A time should come when reasoning is rested, else it has all been for nothing. Those of correct belief will realize this- as will those of incorrect belief.
GeniUs · 56-60, M
I don't want to get on the wrong side of you on this but even Richard Dawkins won't say for sure that 'god doesn't exist' (given that he can't prove it).
Eternal life is it possible? Again unprovable so I wouldn't discount it but I would definitely say we are only talking about our consciousness' surviving. Do you believe that eternal life is possible?
SW-User
@GeniUs: If we rely on the scientific method the results are inconclusive for both questions. If we adopt instead a more stringent system the results are conclusive. Within this more demanding system God certainly does not exist and continuation past death certainly does exist. The scientific method should be considered only one half of a proper onus system for proving: founded on bias and geared to producing rigged results the skeptic finds appealing.
GeniUs · 56-60, M
Are you going to share how we prove these things or keep it a mystery?
Maximusmax · M
Of course challenging one's beliefs goes both ways. However belief and the existence of a Creator are still two different things.

 
Post Comment